i^ 







^ \ 




Class. 
Book 



4- 



REPORT ON HISTORY 
TEXT-BOORS USED IN THE 
PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF THE 
CITY OF NEW YORK 



REPORT 



OF 



The committee to investigate the charges made 
that certain history textbooks in use in the 
public schools of tlie clty of new york contain 
matter which is in derogation of the achieve- 
ments of our national heroes, of the founders 
of the Republic, and of those who have guided 
its destinies; and that SOME books contain 
propaganda. 



COMMITTEE 



Edward Mandel, Chairman 



Harold G. Campbell 
Rufina A. Carls 
Austin G. Clark 
Mary Conlon 
Agnes Craig 
Clyde R. Jeffords 
KAtherine Kavanagh 
Frederick J. Mason 
Thomas McTiernan 
Adolph Mischlich 



Lucille Nicol 
Josephine L. Nordman 
Frederick H. Paine 
Harry B. Penhollow 
Bryan Reilly 
Frederick J. Reilly 
Anna Short 
Plowden Stevens 
Howard M. Tracy 
Frederick White 



1922 






Stillman Appellate Printing Company 
200 William Street, New York 



umm of counts© 
ooouwiNTi BiViaieN 



table of contents 

Page 

Letter of Transmittal — William L. Ettinger 5 

Letter of Transmittal— Edgar Dubs Shimer 

Letter of Transmittal — Edward Mandel 11 

Report of Committee on General Principles and Special Aims 13 

Discussion of General Principles and Special Aims 16 

Monographs 27 

Report of High School Committee 157 

Standardization of Textbooks 163 

Establishment of Minimal Essentials 167 

Summary Findings of -^ the Committee 168 

Action by the Board of Superintendents 170 



Board of Education — The City of New York 
Office of the Superintendent of Schools 

October 28, 1920. 

Mr. Edgar Dubs Shimer, 

Associate Superintendent. 

My Dear Shimer: 

I am in receipt of a number of communications to the effect that 
some of the histories used in our schools contain matter disparaging the 
accomplishments of noted characters in American history and question- 
ing the sincerity of the aims and ideals of the founders of the Republic 
and of those who subsequently guided its destinies. 

Let me suggest that at your early convenience, in your capacity as 
Chairman of the Committee on Studies and Textbooks, you organize 
a representative committee of principals and teachers to make a careful 
investigation of the textbooks to which objection has been made and 
to draw up, as far as may be advisable, such basic principles for the 
writing of textbooks intended for use in our schools as may be helpful 
to authors of such material. 

May I suggest that, to my mind, a distinction should be drawn 
between the obligation to cleave closely to the line of historical truth, 
such as is incumbent upon the historian writing for adult readers and 
the discretion properly conceded to an author of school texts who 
writes for immature minds incapable of and disinclined to make 
fine distinctions but instinctively inclined to worship at the shrine 
of all that is loyal, heroic, and self-sacrificing. To present to 
our children, under the specious plea of historical accuracy, the mis- 
takes, infirmities, or peccadilloes of men who, because of their great 
qualities rather than their weaknesses, were creative and inspirational 



forces in our national life, would do irreparable damage not only to 
our pupils but to our country. A theory of historical accuracy em- 
ployed by an adroit propagandist might be used to justify the presenta- 
tion of a series of biographies and incidents that would create mental 
distress in both teacher and student, and would be destructive of the 
fine spirit of appreciation of and reverence for our institutional life 
which always results from skillful teaching, based upon appropriate 
historical texts. 

When you complete your investigations, please embody the results 
in a report addressed to the Board of Superintendents, for consideration 
and disposition. 

Thanking you in advance for your co-operation, I remain, 

Very truly yours, 

William L. Ettinger, 
Superintendent of Schools. 



Board of Education — The City of New York 
Office of the Superintendent of Schools 



March 27, 1922. 

Dr. William L. Ettinger, 

Chairman, Board of Superintendents. 

Dear Sir: 

In October, 1920, a letter attacking the histories in use in the public 
schools of New York City was referred by you to your Committee 
on Studies and Textbooks for consideration and report. 

At your suggestion specific data were asked for to support the 
general statements made. 

After repeated conferences a formal series of charges in writing, 
containing particulars desired, was filed with your Committee in April, 
1921. 

These charges and specifications were immediately submitted to 
you for consideration with the recommendation that the publishers and 
the authors of the books in question have full and fair opportunity 
for reply. i 

Thereupon, with your approval, the parties involved were notified, 
and late in September, 1921, all the replies were on file. 

These replies were duly considered by you with the conclusion that 
it would be wise to lay the whole matter before a committee of repre- 
sentative schoolroom workers for detailed consideration and close inves- 
tigation. 

Early in October, 1921, this Committee was appointed, on the rec- 
ommendation of your Committee on Studies and Textbooks, with the 
following instructions : 

1. To establish a set of fundamental principles and reasonable 
standards for the writing of textbooks on history intended for 
use in our public schools. 



2. To consider in detail the charges made and the replies thereto 

and, subject to the laws of evidence, to sustain or deny each 
separate charge by a written opinion setting forth clearly the 
reasons for the action. 

3. To invite open public criticism to the end that our list might, 

if necessary, be purged of even the slightest taint of impro- 
priety, propaganda, or unpatriotic sentiment. 

The Committee consisted of the following-named persons: 

Edward Mandel, Chairman, District Superintendent, Queens 

Harold G. Campbell, Principal, Flushing H. S., Queens 

Mrs. Rufina A. Carls, Principal, P. S. 42, Manhattan 

Austin G. Clark, Teacher, Textile H. S., Manhattan 

Mary Conlon, Principal, P. S. 30, Bronx 

Agnes Craig, Teacher, P. S. 3, Bronx 

Clyde R. Jeffords, Teacher, Newtown H. S., Queens 

Katherine Kavanagh, Asst. to Principal, P. S. 46, Brooklyn 

Frederick J. Mason, Teacher, P. S. 11, Queens 

Thomas McTiernan, Teacher, DeWitt Clinton H. S., Manhattan 

Adolph Mischlich, Teacher, P. S. 97, Manhattan 

Lucille Nicol, Principal, P. S. 61, Brooklyn 

Mrs. Josephine L. Nordman, Principal, P. S. 14, Queens 

Frederick H. Paine, Teacher, Eastern District H. S., Brooklyn 

Harry B. Penhollow, Teacher, DeWitt Clinton H. S., Manhattan 

Bryan Reilly, Principal, P. S. 157, Brooklyn 

Frederick J. Reilly, Principal, P. S. 33, Bronx 

Anna Short, Principal, P. S. 28, Manhattan 

Plowden Stevens, Principal, P. S. 44, Bronx 

Howard M. Tracy, Teacher, Curtis H. S., Richmond 

Frederick White, Teacher, Morris H. S., Bronx 

At first the Committee met in executive session and on or about 
November 15, 1921, presented a unanimous report on the fundamental 
principles that should govern the preparation of textbooks on history 
for our public schools. 

These principles were at once submitted to you and with a single 
emendation on your part were formally approved by you. 

8 



Having satisfactorily completed the first part of their work the 
Committee held open session weekly throughout the rest of November 
and December, 1921, and the early part of January, 1922. 

No further new evidence being forthcoming the Committee re- 
sumed executive session and in February, 1922, came to a unanimous 
conclusion, after which they placed the responsibility of formulating 
the final report upon the chairman, to whom was entrusted, also, the 
amplification of the principles declared to be fundamental. 

The following tabulation will show the relative position of the 
books under question when considered with reference to their use in the 
schools : 

Total number of histories purchased in 1919-1920-1921 339,867 
Total number of books under question purchased in 

1919-1920-1921 30,108 

Percentage . • • 9 

Total number of pupils taking history in our schools. 468,038 

Average number per year of books under question. . . 10,036 

Percentage of pupils using the books under question. . 2 1/3 

Relatively few books are under ban and the large majority of these 
can be readily amended. Thus far all the publishers have openly and 
freely expressed their full willingness to make the text satisfactory. 

Our authorized course of study shows clearly that textbooks do not 
control the study of history in our schools. This course is arranged in 
three ascending cycles, each emphasizing the vital essentials for presen- 
tation in the progressive development of historical truth. 

Our pupils are taught not only the what and the when and the 
where, but also and most importantly the why, so that they may interpret 
the present in the light of the past. 

An eager interest is aroused in the establishment of a correct 
sequence of events under the laws of cause and effect. Mere mem- 
oriter work has no place in our course. Fundamental reasons are brought 
out. Proper and desirable emotions are stimulated. Under the glow 
of a noble emotion pupils become hero worshipers and create for them- 
selves new ideals of conduct. In this way they grow acute in detecting 
difference and keen in tracing likeness. As they advance broader com- 
parisons become possible and each pupil is led i<> enjoy a growing 



personal and individual power of appraising values and reaching delib- 
erate and sound conclusions. 

It is pertinent here to call attention to the notable success of 
"America's Making" in October, 1921. Every nerve fibre of every 
living person in and out of school thrilled at that performance. For 
many the study of history took on new meaning. Research became vital. 
Of course, conflicts of opinion arose but these were satisfactorily re- 
solved. The entire reaction was beneficial to the school and to the 
public. 

"America's Making" gave ample evidence to the world that the 
teaching of history in the public schools of New York City has above 
all a distinctly social purpose. Our young Americans are daily being 
taught how to use the wealth of the past to purchase power for the 
present with which they may be able to determine the future, both of 
themselves and of our country. 

The report herewith submitted sets forth fundamental principles, 
investigates objections in detail, and makes specific recommendations. 

The preparation of this report has been a stupendous task loyally 
undertaken and faithfully performed with remarkable speed. It is a 
unanimous report but it did not become unanimous by accident or 
through lethargy. Conflict of opinion and inevitable contest forced the 
Committee back to the truth, and it was the truth that set them free. 

Every member of the Committee deserves the highest commendation 
for faithful, persistent endeavor through five months of arduous labor 
and especially for the absolutely professional attitude toward the subject 
taken bv all and sustained throughout. 



Respectfully yours, 

Edgar Dubs Shimer, 
Chairman, Committee on Studies and Textbooks. 



10 



Board of Education — The City of New York 

( >i iicE of District Superintendent 

Flushing, New York 

May 12, 1922. 
Dr. Edgar Dubs Shimer, 

Associate Superintendent. 

Dear Sir: 

As Chairman of the Committee appointed to investigate the charges 
made that certain history textbooks in use in the public schools of The 
City of New York contain matter which is in derogation of the achieve- 
ments of our national heroes, of the founders of the Republic, and of 
those who have guided its destinies, and that some books contain propa- 
ganda, I beg to submit as and for the report of the Committee the fol- 
lowing : 

1. The minutes of the meetings of the Committee. 

2. The general principles and special aims adopted by the commit- 

tee, as amended by Superintendent William L. Ettinger, to 
guide the Committee in its deliberations and in its de- 
terminations. 

3. A statement of the reasons which led to the adoption of the 

said general principles and the said special aims. 

4. The monographs in which are discussed the objections which 

the Committee deemed of sufficient importance to merit special 
consideration. 

In addition, I beg to report as follows : 

Two special committees were appointed — an elementary school com- 
mittee under the chairmanship of Mrs. Rufina A. Carls, and a high 
school committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Frederick H. Paine. 

All elementary school textbooks under investigation were referred 
in the first instance to the Elementary School Committee, and all text- 
books in use in the high schools, to the High School Committee. 

11 



A number of open meetings were held. To these all persons inter- 
ested were invited. All who desired to speak were given an opportunity. 

After the public meetings were closed, the publishers and authors 
were invited to confer with sub-committees relative to the objections. 
In all cases, the publishers and the writers who appeared showed a 
desire to co-operate. We understand that some of the textbooks are 
now being revised. 

The Committee examined only those textbooks and only those state- 
ments to which objection was made. As the Committee repeatedly an- 
nounced its readiness to investigate all charges, it is fair to assume that 
if other textbooks contain similar objectionable statements that fact 
would have been brought to its attention. 

Every member of the Committee rendered valuable service. I deem 
it my duty, however, to extend special thanks to Mrs. Rufina A. Carls, 
Miss Lucille Nicol, Mrs. Josephine L. Nordman, Mr. Austin G. 
Clark, Mr. Harold Campbell, Mr. Clyde R. Jeffords, and Mr. Fred- 
erick H. Paine. 

May I also be permitted to extend the thanks of the Committee to Miss 
Frances M. Gill and to Miss Ella A. Kelly, who were assigned by 
you to assist the Committee? They showed not only a keen and intelli- 
gent interest, but they were most efficient and constant in their work. 

The Committee takes this opportunity to thank you for your valu- 
able co-operation. 



Respectfully submitted, 



Edward Mandel, 

Chairman. 



12 



REPORT OF COMMITTEE OX GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND 

SPECIAL AIMS 

In determining the appropriateness of the selection of material for 
a public school textbook, the following considerations should be carefully 
weighed : 

Under the compulsory education law children of school age must 
attend upon either public or private instruction. The parent financially 
able, may select for his children a private school or a private tutor and 
thereby determine the nature of the instruction they shall receive, the 
books they shall use, the character of the teachers who shall instruct 
them ; and the opinions political, social, religious or otherwise which 
these teachers shall hold. But the parent whose children attend public 
school has no voice in the disposition of these matters of such vital and 
far-reaching consequences to the future of his children — his most pre- 
cious possessions. These matters are determined for him by the Board 
of Education. Under such circumstances, the parent must be assured 
beyond all question that the facts taught and the sentiments expressed 
in the schools are in full accord with the aims and ideals of the public 
school system. These aims and ideals have been expressed by the 
Commissioner of Education of the State of New York in language 
peculiarly apt and appropriate for all time. He wrote : 

"A teacher in a public school system must come out in the 

open and cheerfully and unhesitatingly stand up and make known to the entire 
community in which he is employed that he is giving his unquestioned support 
to the government, 

"The public schools of any country should be the expression of that coun- 
try's ideals, the purpose of its institutions and its philosophy of life and govern- 
ment. The schools of America should be an expression of America's ideals, of 
her democratic institutions and of her philosophy of life and of representative 
government. 

"There has not been a time in the history of the country when the public 
schools should be engaged more persistently, scientifically, and patriotically in 
teaching the fundamental principles of America's philosophy of life and govern- 
ment than at the present time. A person who does not, without reservation, 
utilize all his intellectual powers and exert all his influence as a teacher in the 
public schools to make such schools an effective and efficient agency m the 
accomplishment, of tin's great function of a school system is not a suitable person 
to ibe chained with the duties of the sacred office of teacher. A teacher who is 
unwilling to follow this course fails to live up to his duty as teacher and fails 
utterly to support the government. 

" Il ;l teacher cannot give unquestioned support to the country his placi is 
not in the school. I will not say where it is. but of all places in the world he 
should not be in the school as the representative of his country." 

The textbook is a teacher. It must be judged by the standards 

13 



applicable to the teacher. A textbook which fails to give unquestioning 
support to the aims and ideals of our public school system has no place 
in the public school. 



GENERAL PRINCIPLES 

The formulation of aims and standards by the Commissioner of 
Education denies, by necessary implication, that the writer of a textbook 
for use in the public schools has absolute freedom in the selection or in 
the interpretation of historical material. Predetermined aims and stand- 
ards predetermine selection and interpretation. 

The textbook must contain no statement in derogation or in dis- 
paragement of the achievements of American heroes. It must not ques- 
tion the sincerity of the aims and purposes of the founders of the 
Republic or of those who have guided its destinies. 

The textbook must contain no material which tends to arouse po- 
litical, racial, or religious controversy, misunderstanding or hatred. 

The textbook must contain no material tending to arouse misunder- 
standing or hatred between the United States and any other nation. 

The selection of material must be restricted to that which contributes 
most directly and essentially to the attainment of the legitimate objectives 
of the public school system as formulated by the State Commissioner of 
Education. 

The writer must be prepared at all times to "come out in the open 
and cheerfully and unhesitatingly stand up and make known to the entire 
community," the aims and the ideals, the purposes and the motives, which 
actuated him in the selection of his material and in his interpretation 
thereof. 

SPECIFIC AIMS 

1. To acquaint the pupils with the basic facts and movements, 
political, industrial, and social, of American history. 

2. To emphasize the principles and motives that were of greatest 
influence in the formation and development of our government. 

14 



3. To establish ideals of patriotic and civic duty. 

4. To awaken in the pupil a desire to emulate all praiseworthy 
endeavor. 

5. To emphasize the importance of weighing permissible evidence 
in forming judgments. 

6. To present the ethical and moral principles exemplified in the 
lives of patriotic leaders. 

7. To inspire in the pupil an appreciation of the hardships endured 
and the sacrifices made in establishing and defending American ideals. 

8. To develop in the pupil a love for American institutions and 
the determination to maintain and defend them. 

9. To bring the light of reason and experience to bear on radical 
or alien theories of economic and political systems. 

10. To enable the pupil to interpret the present in terms of the 
past and to view intelligently the functions and the value of existing 
institutions. 



15 



DISCUSSION OF GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND SPECIAL AIMS 



In order to give a clearer and more definite idea of the scope and 
intent of the general principles and special aims formulated by the Com- 
mittee we submit herewith a discussion of said general principles and 
special aims. 



THE PRIMABY PROBLEM IN WRITING A HISTORY TEXTBOOK IS PROPRIETY 
OF SELECTION OF MATERIAL 

In his "Teaching of History" Professor Johnson says: "History is 
everything that ever happened." 

Dean Russell says: "The materials of history have been in the 
making by every person born into the world from Adam down." 

In its broadest sense therefore history embraces every occurrence, 
significant or insignificant. 

As the pages of a textbook are limited, no material should be used 
unless it is essential and of the highest educational value. The child's 
time must not be taken up with facts which do not measure up to this 
standard. 

B 

THE TEXTBOOK WRITER IS NOT A HISTORIAN 

Strictly speaking the textbook writer is not a historian. The his- 
torian writes for the open market. He has the privilege of selecting 
and organizing his material in accordance with his own views. He may 
be an impartial writer or he may be a partisan. The textbook writer 
has not this freedom. He is subject to the limitations imposed upon the 
teacher. 

The function of the textbook writer is to furnish the teacher with 
the material the latter needs to carry out the aims and purposes set by 
the course of study. As Dean Russell says: 

"Selection of material for a course in. history becomes a professional task, 
quite as important as the task of supplying the material itself. The one is the 
task of the professional teacher, the other of the professional historian." 

16 



It is for the teacher to determine what material is needed. It is 
for the textbook writer to supply it. Unfortunately, an examination 
of the prefaces in various textbooks shows that some textbook writers 
do not take this view, as appears from the following : 

Guitteau says : 

"The momentous events of the last five years have demonstrated conclu- 
sively that our history text' ooks must be written from a new viewpoint — the 
American Revolution is no longer to be studied as an isolated event resulting 
from British injustice. On the contrary, it should be placed in its true light 
as one phase of a larger revolution against kingly usurpation. So with the 
War of 1812, which takes on a new aspect when viewed as an incident in the 
Napoleonic Wars, rather than as a British-American contest. Throughout the 
book therefore special emphasis has been placed upon the relations of the 
United States to other countries. In this way an impartial judgment may be 
passed upon our international relations."' 

McLaughlin and Van Tyne say: 

"This is first of all a textbook and not a story book. We make no apology 
for the omission of many of the 'yarns' of American history. We have tried 
to include only such historical facts and problems as may be easily understood 
by the child of school age and we have intentionally omitted some traditional 
school book lore which, in our opinion, might well be left to oblivion. Many 
pupils will never study their country's history again and there is so much which 
they, as American citizens, ought surely to know, that im a text like this all 
unmeaning events must be sacrificed. By means of this elimination we have 
secured space for fuller explanation and interpretation of really important 
events." 

West says : 

"Four features are emphasized, (1) The historical ground for friendship 
between America and England in spite of old sins and misunderstandings; (2) 
the meaning of the West in American history; (3) the heroic labor movement 
of 1825-1840. usually ignored; and (4) the long conflict between intrenched 
"privilege" and the "progressive" forces in state and nation. I have tried also 
to correct the common delusion which looks for a golden age— to Jefferson or 
Johx Wtnthrop— and to show instead that the democracv of today, imperfect 
as it is,_ is more complete than that of our earlier periods.' Throughout I have 
not hesitated to portray the weaknesses, blunders, and sins of democracy." 

From these prefaces, it appears that the above writers have not 
written to meet the needs of any particular course of study or combina- 
tion of courses. 

What is the result? West contains so much material which does 
not comply with the requirements of the New York City history course 
and his aims in many respects are so different from those prescribed by 
said course that his book must be rewritten almost completely to meet 

17 



the legitimate objections made against it. Though McLaughlin and 
Van Tyne announce they have omitted many of the "yarns" (they do 
not specify which) of American history to make room for more useful 
material, their book contains much which from our standpoint should 
be omitted. 

Objection was made to each of these prefaces on the ground that 
the writer "believes a textbook may be used to influence our interna- 
tional relations." 

We believe that a textbook writer who seeks to influence our inter- 
national relations is a propagandist. Under our constitution it is for the 
federal government, in the first instance, to determine what our foreign 
relations shall be. The children in attendance in our public schools must 
not be used directly or indirectly to influence official action in such 
matters. 



C 



THE BURDEN OF PROOF RESTS UPON HIM WHO MAKES A DEROGATORY 

STATEMENT 

As a rule derogatory statements have little or no educational value. 
They instmctively arouse resentment. Only when a man has been guilty 
of an act of great moral turpitude is a discussion of his act likely to lead 
to beneficial consequences. Nero's cruelty and Arnold's treason are 
illustrations. 

He that alleges the commission of a wrongful act assumes the 
burden of proof. The evidence, in substantiation, must be clear and 
convincing, and the more so, when it affects the reputation of a national 
hero. The graver the consequences of a charge, the higher the station of 
the person assailed, the greater should be the care exercised in the 
making of a charge. 

A derogatory statement partakes of the nature of a libel. A libel 
has been defined as: 

"A publication by writing, printing, picture, effigy, sign, or otherwise, which 
exposes any living person or the memory of a deceased person, to contempt or 
ridicule. For example, to charge a member of Congress that he is a mis- 
representative in Congress, and a groveling office-seeker, is libelous, whether 
made concerning the living or the dead." (Thomas vs. Croswell, 7 Johns, 264; 
Ryckman vs. Delevan, 25 Wend., 113; Miller vs. Donovan, 16 Misc., 453.) 

18 



It is not difficult to find statements in some of the textbooks which 
come within the above rule. 

Unless therefore, the facts are true (where the charge rests upon 
the facts) or unless the inferences (where the charge rests upon infer- 
ences) are such as reasonable minds must draw, the author is not 
justified in making a derogatory statement. 

If there is doubt as to the truthfulness of the facts or if reasonable 
minds may draw different inferences from the facts, the charge is not 
sustained by clear and convincing evidence. The person whose reputa- 
tion is assailed is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. 

In order to avoid any misapprehension we desire to state at this 
point that even if the derogatory statement is true, it should not be 
made unless essential, necessary and of high educational value. 



D 

PROBABLE REASON FOR THE PRESENCE OF MUCH OF THE MATERIAL TO 
WHICH OBJECTIONS HAVE BEEN MADE 

Probably the factor principally responsible for the presence of ob- 
jectionable material in the textbooks under investigation is that the 
writers have not divided their material into topic-units, and have not 
formulated aims, sufficiently extensive in scope to permit marshalling the 
facts in due subordination. There should be a few large topics and aims, 
rather than many. 

The selection of material, and the organization of topics and aims 
are fixed by certain well-known limitations. Among these, the chief are : 

1. The majority of the pupils in the elementary grades will never 

attend upon higher instruction. 

2. Pupils in the elementary grades are interested in broad, power- 

ful descriptions — vivid and colorful. 

3. Pupils in the elementary grades are not sufficiently developed 

mentally to permit of meticulous exactness, fine-spun differ- 
entiations or philosophic analyses. 

It is sufficient to acquaint the pupil with the salient and essential 
facts. "The facts which will lead him to understand that liberty is a 

19 



priceless jewel; that he should be proud of his country; and that he 
should yield obedience to constituted authority." 

The aim is expressed in the "Estimate of 8B Pupils' Attainments," 
prescribed by the New York City Board of Education, as follows : 

"A knowledge of the principal events in the history of the United States 
and of related European history as laid down in the elementary course of 
study; and an elementary understanding of the organization and workings of 
the federal, the state and the municipal government." 

In the light of the foregoing it is manifest that many, if not all of 
the statements in connection with the Revolutionary War and of the 
War of 1812, to which objection was made, could readily be eliminated 
from the textbooks under investigation. 

What should be the aim in teaching the Revolutionary War and 
the War of 1812? 



• The Revolutionary War 

The story of the Revolution can be told under about six topic-units. 
Throughout, however, there should be but one aim: to impress upon the 
pupils the sublime spectacle of thirteen weak colonies spread along fif- 
teen hundred miles of sea coast poorly equipped and poorly disciplined 
giving battle to the strongest military and naval power in the world. 
In addition the Colonists were surrounded by hostile Indians and in their 
midst was a large body of Tories working at times openly, at times 
secretly, but, at all times, against them. 

In telling this story what matters whether the Revolutionary War 
was really a war of secession ! What matters whether King George III 
or his ministers were mainly responsible for the war ! So far as a 
pupil in the elementary grades is concerned these are academic questions. 
What the pupil needs to know is this : The Colonists believed them- 
selves to be oppressed, and so believing, they stood ready to sacrifice 
all in the cause of freedom. The pupil must be taught that if liberty 
is to continue "to dwell in our midst" he must be prepared, should occa- 
sion arise, to make similar sacrifices. 

There is no necessity for harrowing tales or embittered words. 
Things were done by Englishmen, and things were done by Americans, 
which should not have been done. Such acts occur in every great 

20 



struggle. There is so much glory for us in the Revolutionary War that 
there should be no desire to harbor the memory of mistakes. 

Everything essential is accomplished when it is made plain to the 
pupils: that the Colonists had just grievances; that they rebelled because 
they could obtain no redress; that they were inspired by a fierce love of 
liberty; that they counted neither the cost nor the odds against them; 
that the dominating spirit of the Revolution is found in the words of 
Nathan Hale: "I regret that I have but one life to lose for my country." 

The pupil should be inspired by vivid and glowing pictures of the 
sacrifices made by the patriots, the things they did and the things they 
said. In the words of Abbe Reynal: 

"With what grandeur, with what enthusiasm, should I not speak of those 
generous men who erected this grand edifice by their patience, their wisdom 
and their courage, Hancock, Franklin, Adams! Posterity shall know them 
all. Their honored names shall be transmitted to it by a happier pen than mine. 
Brass and marble shall show them to remotest ages. In beholding them shall 
the friend of freedom feel his heart palpitate with joy, feel his eyes float in 
delicious tears. Under the bust of one of them has been written, 'He wrested 
thunder from heaven and the sceptre from tyrants.' Qf the last, words of this 
eulogy shall the whole of them partake." 

Second War With England 

The objections to the accounts of the War of 1812 are mainly to the 
effect that the writers have taken a biased and partisan attitude. If the 
writer will bear in mind that the sectional differences which existed in 
this country with reference to the War of 1812 were the natural differ- 
ences and misunderstandings which arise when two opposing tendencies 
are being harmonized he will refrain from such characterizations as 
"War Hawks," or from cynical, sarcastic or sneering remarks concerning 
the prosecution of the war. He will understand that it was natural and 
under the circumstances inevitable that in the crisis which confronted the 
country the leadership should fall upon Clay, a man from the West, 
who was free from the traditions of the Revolutionary period. The dis- 
agreements between the Peace Party and the War Party were funda- 
mentally due to the fact that "the spirit of individualism" was still strong, 
particularly in the New England States. 

As Mace says in "Method in History" : 

"This approach goes on more rapidly than ever before, for the need of each 
for the other (meaning nationality and democracy) is more continuous and 

21 



pressing. The above growth was checked and limited by the rise of a counter 
movement mainly confined to New England and the Middle States. This anti- 
national sentiment connected itself with sympathy for England, and thus brought 
upon itself the odium of being unpatriotic." 



EMASCULATED ACCOUNTS OF WARS IN ORDER TO ENCOURAGE PEACE 

Objection has been made to the treatment in some of the textbooks 
of the wars in which we have been engaged. The objections are to the 
effect that the accounts are emasculated. In reply it is strenuously urged 
that "the surest way to end war, is to sing the praises of peace and to 
say little of war and the heroes of war." 

We are all committed to the proposition that it is our duty to co- 
operate to the fullest extent to help put an end to warfare. 

President Harding says : 

"If I catch the conscience of America we'll lead the world to outlaw war." 

Lloyd George says : 

"Above all, making sure that war shall henceforth be declared to be a 
crime punishable by the laws of nations." 

Marshal Foch says: 

"War in itself and for itself is the greatest crime in the world, and the 
glory of victory pursued for itself is a crime. This world is made for peace 
and for work in peace time. The first duty is to work for people, not to fight." 

It has been said that: 

"War is a crime, it is wholesale murder, it is a substitute for justice, reason, 
civilization and world safety." 

We join unreservedly in condemnation of war when waged for ag- 
grandizement — in defiance of the principles of justice and of equity. 
The Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 were not such wars. An 
emasculated account of these wars cannot be defended. 

War in defense of freedom or in vindication of righteousness, jus- 
tice and equity should be vividly portrayed, and the praises of its heroes 
should be joyously sung. Thus only can we raise a citizenry willing to 
die for the country. 

22 



OUR HEROES 

Objection has been made that some of the textbooks contain state- 
ments in derogation of our national heroes. In reply it has been urged 
that the statements are true, and that attention should be called to the 
weaknesses of our heroes or we will esteem them too highly. 

Truth is no defense to the charge of impropriety. "The Aristidean 
sense of justice" which would spread upon the pages of a textbook the 
weaknesses of our heroes to assure itself that our children will not enter- 
tain for them a gratitude too deep or a veneration too exalted is a senti- 
ment which may find a place and an audience somewhere. That place 
must not be the public school ; that audience must not be the children 
in attendance. 

The assurance that posterity will hold our heroes in grateful re- 
membrance is one of the most powerful incentives to heroic achievement. 
To preserve unsullied the name and fame of those who have battled that 
we might enjoy the blessings of liberty, is a solemn and sacred obliga- 
tion. Hero worship may have its faults. In comparison with the vice of 
ingratitude, they are negligible. 

Superintendent of Schools William L. Ettinger has said: 

''Regard for historical accuracy does not require that elementary histories 
contain statements with regard to the foibles or weaknesses of any of the great 
historical figures who have always been the subject of admiration and rever- 
ence. We should not direct the attention of immature minda to the mistakes, 
infirmities, or peccadilloes of historical characters, because their greatness rather 
than their failings enabled them to be creative forces in our national life." 

We are not interested in the petty weaknesses of our heroes. We 
are interested in those sterling qualities of mind and heart which made 
their heroism possible. 

"Children live and suffer with their heroes. They love to imitate 
the great and noble characters with whom they are brought in contact. 
They awaken in them the spirit of emulation." (McMurray.) 

To call the pupil's attention to the weaknesses of our heroes is not 
only of doubtful educational value but it may result in harmful conse- 
quences. The pupil may well reason that it is safe to indulge in such 
lapses as they do not interfere with success. 

23 



In the absence of reasons which unquestionably justify his doing 
so, the textbook writer must not spread upon the pages of his book the 
shortcomings of our heroes. We prefer to listen rather to the words of 
President Harding, Abraham Lincoln and Pericles. 

President Harding says : 

"You and your associates are going to voice the last testimony of love and 
affection from living comrades for their dead. You may be very sure that the 
whole nation will echo your sentiments and feel with you the thrill of a common 
pride and common sorrow; pride in the glorious service, and historial achieve- 
ment of these our brothers who gave freely all exacted from them. They have 
set for all of us the perfect example of service and sacrifice, and it is well that 
their associates should, through this tribute, remind the nation of its eternal 
obligation to prove worthy of the devotion its sons have ever shown for it." 

President Lincoln said: 

"But in a larger sense we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot 
hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have 
consecrated it far above our power to add or detract. The world will little 
note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they 
did here." 

Pericles said: 

"So died these men as became Athenians. For this offering of their lives 
they each of them individually received that renown which never grows old, and 
for a sepulchre not so much that in which their bones have been deposited but 
that noblest of shrines wherein their glory is laid up to be eternally remembered 
upon every occasion on which deed or story shall call for its commemoration. 
For heroes have the whole earth for their tomb, and in lands far from their 
own, where the column with its epitaph declares it, there is enshrined in every 
fcreaEt a, record unwritten with no tablet to preserve it, except that of the 
heart." 



PROPAGANDA 

It has been charged that some textbooks contain propaganda. In 
reply some have alleged that all who make the charge are persons op- 
posed to friendly relations with Great Britain. The reply cannot be sus- 
tained, as appears from the following editorial in "The American Legion 
Weekly" of October 7, 1921 : 

"The country has known for some time that school textbooks on American 
history are being revised on the theory that the elimination or correction of 
obvious untruths or distorted truths concerning England's relations with this 
country, notably during the Revolutionary War. would promote the cause of 
international friendship. ... If the purpose of some of the authors was 

24 



not to give the lasting impression to the school children of this country that the 
Revolutionary War was au uujustitiable war, that is likely to bo the effect of 
their work. ... It will be regretted if what appeared to be a meritorius 
undertaking has been exploited with propaganda which every i'air-ininded 
American must resent." 

It cannot be contended that the American Legion is actuated by 
malice toward any country. 

The State Commissioner of Education has said: 

"The public schools of any countiy should be the expression of that coun- 
try's ideals, the purpose of its institutions and its philosophy of life and govern- 
ment. The schools of America should be an expression of America's ideals, of 
her democratic institutions and of her philosophy of life and of representative 
government." 

It is impossible for a writer to be a propagandist and to give the 
best that is in him to his country. A propagandist's book cannot be "an 
expression of America's ideals, of her democratic institutions and of her 
philosophy of life and of representative government." 

If one may propagandize for, another may propagandize against. 
The result would be intolerable. 



H 



CONTROVERSIAL TOPICS 

As far as possible, the writer of a textbook should avoid controversial 
topics. The public schools are maintained by the public funds. The 
taxpayers are of various creeds and political beliefs. Their feelings must 
be respected. 

However impartially the writer may try to deal with a controversial 
topic, it is impossible for him to eliminate completely his personal views 
and prejudices. The pages of a textbook are limited. Only a limited 
amount of material can be used, even though the topic is of the utmost 
importance. Impartiality is impossible unless there is an adequate 
presentation of the essential facts. 

In the absence of very strong reasons to the contrary, the discussion 
of controversial topics should be avoided in elementary school textbooks. 

25 



PATRIOTISM 

It is objected that some of the textbooks make no attempt to incul- 
cate patriotism by bringing to the attention of pupils the best in the lives, 
words, and deeds of our patriots; and that in some of the books, too 
much attention is given to the utterances and achievements of the heroes 
of other countries. 

In reply, it is urged that true patriotism does not require that we 
magnify our country at the expense of others; that a "narrow-visioned" 
patriotism means that the Englishman will become more English; the 
German, more German ; and the American, more American. 

We are not unmindful of the force of the reply. We must insist, 
however, that in the elementary grades, our primary concern is to 
acquaint the pupils with the deeds and words of our own heroes, and 
with the traditions of our own land. 

Patriotism is not "egotism." To make certain that the pupils in the 
elementary grades are thoroughly familiar with our own heroes before 
we introduce them to the heroes of other lands is neither "narrow- 
visioned" nor evidence of "international hatred." 

We do not agree with the sentiment that: "Patriotism is a force 
effective only for war." Or that it is "Bellicose nationalism disguised 
in sheep's clothing of self -righteousness." 

To inspire the pupil with love and reverence for his country, we 
must acquaint him with the best that his country has achieved 



26 



MONOGRAPHS 

Over live hundred objections were passed upon by the Committee. 
Each objection was carefully considered. Each was judged by the 
same standard — the general principles and special aims hereinbefore set 
forth. Thereafter, the objections deemed sufficiently important to merit 
special consideration were referred to a sub-committee with directions 
to discuss each in a separate monograph, each mongraph to set forth 
as nearly as possible : 

1. The passage to which objection was made. 

2. A summary statement of the objection made. 

3. The decision of the Committee relative to the disposition of the 

objection. 

4. A summary statement of the reasons for the decision. 

5. Suggestive recommendations. 

Monographs were accordingly prepared and submitted to the Com- 
mittee as a whole. Said Committee, after careful consideration, made 
numerous changes. The sub-committee was -then instructed to embody 
these changes and make similar changes where necessary. The annexed 
monographs were prepared in accordance with these directions. 

In passing upon the objections we have quoted extensively from 
eminent authorities. We have attempted little that is original. We 
were not called upon to write anything original. 

Practically all of the objections fall under one of two heads : 

1. Inadequacy; 

2. Impropriety. 

We thought that the best way to dispose of the objections was to 
compare wmat the textbook writer said with what the authorities said. 

Where it appears from the accounts given by eminent authorities 

27 



that the textbook writer has not made due and reasonable use of the 
valuable material which was available, we have sustained the charge that 
the textbook writer's account is inadequate. 

Where the objection is that the textbook gives a derogatory ac- 
count, and it appears that eminent historians do not agree with the 
textbook writer, we have held that there is a serious issue of fact; that 
the writer has not sustained the burden of proof; that his evidence is not 
clear and convincing. 

The disposition of the objections not taken up in the monographs 
is, we believe, sufficiently indicated by the general principles and special 
aims hereinbefore set forth; by the discussion of said principles and 
aims submitted in this report; and by the discussions in the annexed 
monographs. 



28 



THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE 

The following objections submitted to the Committee are consid- 
ered in the annexed monograph : 

To so much of McLaughlin and Van Tyne, sec. 263, as states: 

1. "Jefferson did little more than to write clearly and in living harmonious 
phrases what all freedom-loving Americans believed." 

2. A list of twenty-seven grievances was given, some of which seem unrea- 
sonable now (foot-note). 

General objection was taken to many textbooks on the ground that 
the accounts are not inspiring; that pupils are not given a clear idea 
of what is meant by a Declaration of Independence; or why such a 
Declaration was neces-arv ; and that some books do not print the Decla- 
ration. 

CONSIDERATION OF THE OBJECTIONS 

There are two attitudes of mind, says Professor Tyler, with which 
one may read the Declaration of Independence : 

"Uncritical awe and worship of the American Revolution and of that state 
paper as its absolutely perfect and glorious expression — or distrust of the 
Declaration as a piece of writing lifted up into inordinate renown by the pas- 
sionate and heroic circumstances of its origin, and ever since then extolled 
beyond reason by the blind energy of patriotic enthusiasm." 

Rufus Choate characterized the Declaration as made up of "Glit- 
tering and sounding generalities of natural right." 

Earl Russell, though conceding the responsibility of the British 
Government for the Revolution, says : 

"The truth of the instrument is seriously warped by its exclusive and exces- 
sive arraignment of George III as a single and despotic tyrant." 

John Adams says: 

"There were other expressions which I would not have inserted, if I had 
drawn it up— particularly that which called the Kins: a tyrant. I thought this too 
rsonal; for T never believed GEORGE to be a tyrant in disposition and in nature. 
I always believed him to be deceived by his courtiers on both sides of the 
Atlantic, and in his official capacity, only cruel. I thought the expression too 
passionate, and too much like scolding, for so grave and solemn a document. 
but as Fraxkux and Sherman wire to inspect n afterwards, I thought it would 
not become me to strike it out. I consented to report- it." 

Calhoun and his followers denied the proposition that "All men are 
created equal." 

29 



A most frequent form of disparaging the Declaration is to deny to 
it originality: 

Richard Henry Lee sneered at it as : 

"Copied from Lccke's Treatise on Government." 
John Stockton Littell describes the Declaration as 

"An enduring monument at, once of patriotism, and of genius and skill in 
the art of appropriation." 

John Adams wrote in 1822: 

"There is not an idea in it but what has been hackneyed in Congress for 
two years before. The substance of it is contained in the Declaration of Rights 
and the violation of those rights, in the journals of Congress, in 1774. Indeed, 
the essence of it is contained in a pamphlet, voted and printed by the town of 
Boston, before the first Congress met, composed by James Otis, as I supose, 
in one of his lucid intervals, and pruned and polished by Samuel Adams." 

Others charge that Jefferson obtained his sentiments and his 
phraseology from: The history of Bacon in Virginia; The Declaration 
of Rights adopted by Virginia in 1776; the Mecklenberg Declaration of 
Independence; Chief Justice Drayton's charge to the Grand Jury of 
Charleston in April, 1776. 

As Jefferson was not delegated to write an original essay on the 
rights of man, but to assemble and present in organized and appealing 
form the sentiments, opinions and beliefs of the people in the struggle 
;for independence, the criticism of "lack of originality" is uncalled for. 
Jefferson never claimed that the instrument was original. 

When Jefferson's attention was called to the disparaging remarks 
of Adams, he made the following "dignified reply": 

"All this may be true. Whether I had gathered my ideas from reading or 
reflection, I do not know. I only know that I turned to neither book nor 
pamphlet while writing it. I did not consider it as any part of my charge to 
invent new ideas altogether, and to offer no sentiment which had ever been 
expressed before." 

The strength of the Declaration lies not in its originality, but in its 
faithful, skillful, and virile reproduction of the issues in the very 
language of the people. He was called upon to state "not his, but their, 
reasons" for revolt. He succeeded, as Professor Tyler says : 

"In gathering up whatever was in their souls, their very thoughts and pas- 
sions, their ideas of constitutional law, their interpretations of fact, their opinions 
as to men and as to events in all that ugly quarrel, their notions of justice, of 
civic dignity, of human rights; their memory of wrongs which seemed to them 
intolerable, especially of wrongs inflicted by insolent and brutal men, in the 
name of the King, and by his apparent command. 

30 



"He gathered up the thoughts and emotions and even the characteristic 
phrases of the people for whom he wrote, and these he perfectly incorporated 
with what was already in his mind, and then to the music of his own keen, rich, 
passionate, and enkindling style, he mustered them into that stately triumphant 
procession wherein, as some of us still thmk, they will yu marchiny on to the 
world's end. 

"He put into the Declaration something that was original — that no one 
else could have put there — himself — his own genius, his own moral force, his 
faith in God, his faith in ideas, his love of innovation, his passion for progress, 
his invincible enthusiasm, his intolerance of prescription, of injustice, of cruelty 
his sympathy, his clarity of vision, his affluenci of diction, his power 'to fling out 
great phrases which will long fire and cheer the souls of. men struggling against 
political unriyhteousness." 

The great merit of this document lies in its power to "fire and 
cheer the souls of men struggling against political unrighteousness," 
Our success as a nation is "inseparably associated in the minds of the 
people of the world" with the principles of human rights expounded in 
the Declaration. It inspired the Garrisons, and the Sumners, and the 
Sewards, and the Phillipses. "It made Lincoln President of the United 
States. It was the unsurmountable obstacle in the way of Calhoun." 
Among people of all lands, it has been an "inspiration to political free- 
dom." 

Buckle said of it: 

"That noble declaration ought to be hung in the nursery of every king, and 
blazoned on the porch of every royal palace.'' 

A document so inseparably associated with our national glory, a 
document which is, and has been, the "hope and inspiration" of people 
wherever "struggling against political unrighteousness" must not be sub- 
jected to the so-called "higher criticism," or "critical analysis" in a text 
book used in the elementary grades of a public school. The pages of the 
book should be devoted to more inspiring and useful purposes. 

Concede that the Declaration is a "vehement and impassioned de- 
nunciation," and that it "bristles with statements" which could have been 
uttered in language more temperate and judicious; and that it sets forth 
"aphorisms about the natural rights of man which provoke a smile," 
nevertheless, it is a human document. It breathes the spirit of liberty; it 
sets forth in plain vivid language the grievances of the colonists driven 
to rebel against the greatest military power in the w r orld. 

In the presence of such a document, the textbook writer, inspired 
by its great principles, and seeking to inspire the minds of our pupils with 

31 



its principles of human rights, should have no thought for such questions 
as to whether or not Jefferson wrote an original document, or whether 
or not the plea is too impassioned, or whether or not more moderate and 
judicious language could have been used, or whether or not some of the 
charges are vital and essential. A discussion of such issues with pupils 
of an elementary grade is of no educational value. Such discussion with 
immature minds must lead to harmful results. 

If the writer of a text book has the inspiration to view the Declara- 
tion of Independence as a great human document, — the only great docu- 
ment which up to the day of its promulgation voiced the aspirations of 
the people against oppression, and defined the bases upon which govern- 
ments must be founded, and so made possible the memorable words of 
Lincoln, "Government of the people, by the people, and for the people." 
he will have neither time, nor inclination to write the statements to which 
objection has been made. 



RECOMMENDATIONS 

A textbook account of the Declaration of Independence should 
among other things, set forth the following: 

1. A brief statement of the meaning and of the purpose of the 

Declaration of Independence. 

2. A brief summary of the grievances set forth in the Declaration 

with special reference to four or five of the principal griev- 
ances. 



3. A copy of the Declaration in full. 



32 



'I HE EXTENT OF THE KING'S RESP< >NSIBILITY FOR THE 
REVOLUTIONARY WAR 

Objection has been taken to the statement in some of the textbooks 
that the King- was cither wholly or mainly responsible for the Revolu- 
tionary War. 

CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTIONS 

( »ne of the curious facts developed at the hearings is that the ob- 
jectors also insist that the correctness of the specifications in the 
Declaration must nol be questioned. In this they are inconsistent. The 
Declaration enumerates twenty-seven causes. All of the specifications 
begin with "He," and all but one, the thirteenth, set forth grievances 
against the Ring solely. The thirteenth specification recites tha.t "lie 
has combined with others" to commit certain specified wrongful acts 
enumerated in said thirteenth specification under eleven subdivisions. 
Clearly the Declaration regards the King as the main cause of the 
war. 

Earl Russell criticised the Declaration because of its: 
"Exclusive and excessive arraignment of George III." 

Though he voted for and signed the Declaration, John Adams 
thought that : 

Tin King should not have been called a tyrant. He thought the expression 
too passionate, and too much like scolding for so grave and solemn a document. 

On the other hand, we have the most eminent authority to sustain 
the indictment of the King as set forth in the Declaration: 

Sir Erskine May says : 

''The King desired ... to direct the policy of his ministers, and himself 
to distribute the patronage of the crown. He was ambitious not only to reign, 
but to govern." 

According to Lecky: 

The King labored to build tip in England a system of personal government, 

and it was foi this reason thai lie would not send for Chatham when there 
was greatest danger to the empire a- Chatham would have insisted that the 
country's policies should he directed by responsible ministers and not by an 
irresponsible sovereign. 

John Richard Green says: 

Hi- influence with the ministry was predominant. In its later and more 
disastrous days, if was supreme. Lord North, who became the head of the 
ministry in 1770. was the mere mouthpiece of the King. 

The weight of authority seems to be that: 

George III ascended flu throne determined to exercise powers which did 

33 



not rightly belong to him, and that, except in the matter of the Regency bill, 
he dominated the ministry and parliament for the first twenty-five years of his 
reign. 

The age of George III was one of the most corrupt and venal ages 
in English history. George III had no difficulty in corrupting his min- 
isters. The ministers had no difficulty in bribing such men as Johnson 
and Gibbon. As has been said, the one great blot upon the names of 
Johnson and of Gibbon is "the barter of their conscience for money." 
Both had expressed sympathy for the Americans up to that time. Gib- 
bon had even written against the ministerial measures. Johnson's pen 
was used in writing coarse, ribald, and sneering articles against the 
colonies. To them, a writer of a stinging epigram alluded in the line 
"What made Johnson write made Gibbon dumb." 

The same idea that men could readily be purchased influenced 
largely the conduct of the king and his ministers in their treatment of 
the Colonists. At different times, they sought to purchase the support of 
such men as Samuel Adams, Joseph Reed, Benedict Arnold, the 
soldiers who mutinied, and others. They succeeded in buying Arnold. 

In England itself, unquestionably it was possible for the King and 
his ministers in various ways to purchase the support of parliament. 

Moreover the King had the support of the rich land owners, who de- 
manded that part of the expense of the government be met by the 
Colonists, thus relieving them of some of the burdens of taxation. 

It appears, then, from the facts as a whole that the King was ob- 
stinate, determined to assert himself — not only to reign, but to govern, 
that owing to the venal character of some of his ministers and the mem- 
bers of parliament, and the greed of the land-owners, it was possible 
for him to do things which he could not otherwise have done. There 
seems little room for doubt that the King's obstinacy was the main con- 
tributing factor which prevented the adoption of conciliatory measures. 
Unquestionably, full share for the responsibility rests upon the King, the 
ministry, the parliament, and the land-owners. 

recommendations 
In any account the following should be brought out : 

1. The King's obstinacy and his determination to force the 

Colonists to obey. 

2. The venal character of the ministry, and of Parliament. 

34 



THE MOTHER COUNTRY 

Objection has been made to the Committee to calling England the 
Mother Country, because: 

1. Settlers came from England, France, Germany, Sweden, Hol- 

land, and elsewhere. 

2. Since the Revolution, immigration has changed the character of 

the population of this country. 

CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTION 

When the Revolution broke out about 80% of the population was 
of English origin. In all colonies, English was the language spoken. AH 
had acquired English habits, and all claimed for themselves the rights of 
Englishmen. Whatever their origin, it is unquestionable that the Colon- 
ists had merged their characteristics in those of the English. 

Though, since the Revolution there has been a very large immigra- 
tion from Europe, Asia, and Africa, and there has been extensive cross- 
ing of strains, all have been merged in the national character they found. 
Immigration has strengthened the stock, but the immigrant has lost his 
identity. 

We fail to see any valid objection in speaking of the Revolution 
and Pre-revolutionary events, to calling England the Mother Country. 

The First Continental Congress, in its petition to King George III, 
besought of him "as the living Father of his whole people, his interposi- 
tion for their relief, and a gracious answer to their petition." 

On June 12, 1775, the Second Continental Congress asked the 
Colonies to keep a day of fast, on which day the Colonists were to recog- 
nize "King George The Third as their rightful sovereign, and to look up 
to the Supreme and Universal superintending Providence of the Great 
Government of the world for a gracious interposition of heaven for the 
restoration of the invaded rights of America, and a reconciliation with 
the Parent State." 

Lastly, the Declaration of Rights, issued by the Stamp Act Congress, 
in October, 1765, contains the following in paragraph XIII thereof: 

35 



J'That it is the indispensable duty of these colonies to the mother country, 
Thus the colonies spoke of England as the "mother country." 



un- 



English institutions, English laws, and English customs, are 
questionably the basis of our institutions. They have been modified and 
molded to a large extent by the influx of immigrants, but the basis of it 
all is English. 



36 



JOHN HANCOCK, WRITS OF ASSISTANCE, SMUGGLING, 

NAVIGATION ACT, MANUFACTURERS' ACT, 

COLONIAL POLICY 

The following objections made to the committee are considered in 
the annexed monograph: 

To so much of sec. VII, Barnes, part II, as states: 

1. "John Hancock, a rich merchant of Boston, who at a later day, was 
President of the Continental Congress, and the first signer of the Declaration 
of Independence, was a smuggler; so had been his father and many other re- 
spected people." 

2. "Bringing goods into a country without paying such taxes on them as 
the law demands is smuggling, and smuggling is a crime." 

3. "Merchants in England complained that they were losing trade in 
America because of so much smuggling there, and in 1761 England tried to 
break it up." 

4. "One good way to do this was to have customs officers search out and 
seize such goods as had been smuggled in." 

5. "To enable them to find the goods, they were given Writs of Assistance, 
as they were called, which were really warrants that gave the officers power to 
search most dwellings." 

6. "The Colonists were angered by these visits. The Writs of Assistance 
gave to the officers chance to annoy people, and they were sometimes harsh in 
their ways. When it seemed that houses were searched out of mere spite, the 
officers were resisted." 

To so much of Guitteau's account as states: 

"But smuggling was carried on so general^ that it became almost respect- 
able." 

"The Writ of Assistance was really a general search warrant." 

To so much of West's account as states: 

1. "An illegal and most pernicious trade by which the enejny is supplied 
with provisions and other necessaries whereby they were partly, if not alone, 
enabled to sustain and protract this long and expensive war. The French 
armies in Canada, and the French fleets in the West Indies were fed by provi- 
sions shipped to them from New England at the very time that England was 
fighting desperately to protect New England against these armies and fleets." 

2. '.'Many colonists confused this shameful trade with the word 'smug- 
gling', which had long made parts of the Navigation Laws a dead letter." 

The general objection to all these accounts is that they are unfair, 
biased, and inadequate; that they do not make clear the distinction be- 
tween smuggling and resistance to tyrannous laws. 

consideration of objections 

Very early in the history of the colonies English merchants insisted 
upon a monopoly of the colonial commerce. To make England the com- 

37 



mercial emporium of the world was the avowed English policy. Ac- 
cordingly acts were passed providing that commerce between England 
and the rest of the world, and between England and her colonies must 
be carried on in ships solely owned and principally manned by English- 
men. It must be noted, however, that all countries pursued the policy of 
exploiting their colonies. Great Britain was following the same policy. 

By the Act of 1646, it was provided that all goods for the American 
plantations should be exempted from duty for three years on condition 
that said plantations would allow no shipment of their produce to a for- 
eign port except in English vessels. 

By the Act of 1651, foreign ships were excluded from Anglo-Ameri- 
can harbors, and it was provided that the most valuable American staples 
should be exported only to England. These staples were enumerated 
in the act and hence were called "enumerated articles." 

By the Act of 1663, there could be no importations from European 
countries, unless from the British Islands, in English built vessels. 

By the Act of 1697, it was provided that for the better enforcement 
of the navigation acts, courts of vice-admiralty be established throughout 
the colonies with power to try admiralty and revenue cases without a 
jury. The legality of these courts was contested by the colonists, but it 
was sustained by the privy council. 

By the Act of 1699, for the purpose of favoring the English manu- 
facturer, it was provided that no domestic woolens be transported from 
colony to colony, and that no wool or woolen cloth be transported to any 
foreign country. 

By the Act of 1732, in order to favor English hatters, hats manu- 
factured in the colonies were placed under the same restrictions as 
woolen goods, and no colonial hatter was permitted to have more than 
two apprentices at any one time. 

By the Molasses Act of 1733, in order to compel the colonies to buy 
sugar and molasses from the British West Indies, and to stop them from 
trafficking with the French West Indies, a heavy duty was imposed upon 
these articles. Limited at first for three years, the Molasses Act was 
continued from time to time. The act provoked considerable opposition 
in the northern states. The New England States depended largely upon 
the products of their fisheries. These found a ready market in the 
French West Indies, which in turn depended largely upon the sale of 
their molasses. Hence, the Molasses Act was a burdensome and serious 

38 



interference with the means of existence of the colonies. Consequently, 
the act was "evaded by the whole body of colonial traders." The 
colonies resisted the payment of the tax on the ground that they con- 
sidered it an unreasonable and "illegal" interference with their means of 
securing a livelihood. 

It was principally because of their avowed and open evasion of this 
act and its amendments that the colonists have been called smugglers. 

In common acceptation of the term, a smuggler is one who for the 
purpose of illegally enriching himself, refuses to pay a duty. There were 
smugglers among the colonists. There are smugglers amongst us today. 
There are smugglers in all countries. These men are criminals. But 
when the whole body of traders, men of stern rectitude, leaders in civic 
life, openly and with the concurrence of the community defy the law, 
it is not fair to call them smugglers. They are seeking to maintain a 
principle. We can no more indict "the whole body of colonial traders" 
than we can "indict a whole nation." 

However as there was no real attempt made to enforce the law, 
(a) because of the universal opposition, and (b) because of the con- 
nivance and corruption of the crown officials, there was no clash between 
the colonists and the government. 

Trouble began toward the close of the French and Indian War. 
In 1760, Pitt issued strict orders that the trade with the neutral ports 
of St. Thomas and Eustatius, and with the French Islands, be stopped. 
Trade with these places at that time was particularly objected to be- 
cause it was claimed it aided the French with whom the English were at 
war. It was claimed the colonies were supplying the French with pro- 
visions and other necessaries. 

The colonies on their part contended that it was good policy to 
make as much money out of the enemy as possible, and they cited the 
example of the Dutch, who had fought the Spaniards and traded with 
them at the same time. They also pointed out that during the war be- 
tween the English and the Dutch, the colonies had been permitted to 
trade with the Dutch. 

The attempt to enforce the law met with such strenuous opposition 
that the custom house officials applied for writs of assistance ; that is to 
say for permission to search when and where they pleased, for smuggled 
goods, and to call upon the bystanders to assist them. The merchants op- 
posed these writs as oppressive and illegal. 

39 



Hutchinson held that the writs were valid. The Attorney General 
of Great Britain subsequently "held that they were not valid." In July, 
1767, a special act was passed by Parliament legalizing the writ. 

In 1762, by the act of George III, c. 22, it was provided that one- 
half of the proceeds of the confiscated goods should be divided between 
the officers and the men who seized the goods. 

In 1763, the British Navy was employed to enforce the navigation 
acts. Every captain under Admiral Colville, who commanded the 
British fleet from the St. Lawrence to Florida, was furnished with a 
custom house commission with instructions to enter harbors and seize 
persons suspected of being engaged in illicit trade. 

Pitt well summarized the grievances of the colonists with respect to 
these and other measures when in 1775 he moved the repeal of the 
following: 

The Sugar Act 

The Two Quartering Acts 

The Tea Act 

The Act Suspending the New York Legislature 

The Two Acts for the Trial in Great Britain of Offenses Com- 
mitted in America 

The Boston Port Bill 

The Act for Regulating the General Government of Mas- 
sachusetts 

The Quebec Act 

He said : 

"I wish, my lords, not to lose a day in this urgent, pressing crisis. . . . 
When I state the magnitude of the danger from the present plan of misadmin- 
istration practiced against them ... I contend not for indulgence, but jus- 
tice lor America." 

"Resistance to your acts was necessaiy as it was just. We shall be forced 
ultimately to retract. Let us retract while we can, not when we must." 

In the light of the foregoing, let us now take up the consideration of 
the accounts to which objection has been made. 

"Bringing goods into a country without paying such taxes on them as the 
law demands is smuggling, and smuggling is a crime. But the colonists felt 
that the law was unjust, and that breaking it was neither wrong nor disgraceful. 
A great part of the merchandise that came to the colonists was smuggled. Many 
loading merchants were smugglers. John Hancock, a rich merchant of Boston, 
who at a later day was president of the Continental Congress and the first 
signer of the Declaration of Independence, was a smuggler. So had been his 
father, and many other respected and worthy people." 

40 



At the head of this account given by Barnes is a picture of John 
Hancock. 

The effect of the account as a whole is to impress upon the pupil's 
mind that Hancock was a smuggler and a criminal. 

The statement: "But the colonists felt that the law was unjust, and 
that the breaking it was neither wrong nor disgraceful," does not alter 
the effect of the account. 

Barnes says that the writs "gave to the officers chances to annoy 
people, and they were sometimes harsh in their ways. When it seemed 
that the houses were searched out of mere spite, the officers were resisted." 
In his Part I, he says : "Writs of assistance were issued which were 
warrants, giving the officers power to search private houses. The 
Colonists were angered by these visits, and the officers were resisted." 

The condemnation of the writs should be more forceful. There 
should be a reference to the denunciation of the writs by Otis. It should 
be shown that the writs were violations of fundamental rights. 

In the Guitteau account, we find the following: 

"But smuggling was carried on so generally that it became almost re- 
spectable." 

The foregoing, from the point of view already expressed, is ob- 
jectionable. 

West cites Pitt's condemnation of the trade with the French West 
Indies as justification for the issuance of writs of assistance. He should 
have presented not only Pitt's statement, but the counter-statement of 
the colonies : 

1. Citizens of countries at war had theretofore been permitted to trade 
with one another. 

2. The colonies had been permitted to trade with the Dutch during the 
war 1m tween the English and the Dutch. 

The statement by McLaughlin and Van Tyne that: "Smuggling 
was so common that even a Boston merchant is. known as the Prince of 
Smugglers" is objectionable. 

The statement of the writers that : 

"Smuggling was so common that it was hard to get witnesses who would 
testify against, an offender, or who would tell where lie had secreted the 
smuggled goods," 

41 



is unfair. It should be made clear that the witnesses refused to testify 
as a protest against arbitrary laws. These same people showed their 
honesty and fairness when they acquitted the soldiers in the case of the 
Boston massacre and when two of their leading lawyers defended the 
soldiers. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

We recommend that in any account of the writs of assistance, the 
following be brought out : 

1. A brief sketch of the policy of the British Government with ref- 

erence to manufacturing and trading. 

2. The objectionable character of the laws enacted. 

3. The long continued neglect of the British government regularly 

to enforce the laws. 

4. The creation of the spirit of resistance. 

5. The enactment of laws to force obedience. 

6. The dangerous character of the laws passed. 



42 



THE BURNING OF THE "GASPEE" 

The following objections submitted to the Committee are considered 
in the annexed monograph : 

1. To so much of West as alleges: 

a. The Gaspee ran aground while chasing a smuggler. 

b. She was boarded by an armed mob and her commander was shot. 

2. To so much of McLaughlin and Van Tyne as alleges: 

"The organization of intercolonial committees was the result of an attack 
upon an English revenue cutter, the Gaspee." 

3. To so much of Guitteau as alleges: 

"Violent outbreaks also took place in several other colonies. The men 
of Rhode Island seized and burned the Gaspee, a British man-of-war engaged 
in suppressing smuggling." 

The objections made to the Committee are to the effect that the 
statements : 

1. ' In West are untrue. 

2. In Guitteau and in McLaughlin and Van Tyne incorrect. 

3. In Guitteau unfair. 



consideration of objections 

The Gaspee, an armed schooner in the Revenue service, appeared in 
Narragansett Bay in March, 1772. Her commander, Duddington, has 
been described as "a haughty Gessler/' who demanded that passing 
ships lower their colors in token of submission. Many ships refused 
to do so. His conduct was so arbitrary as to provoke a protest from the 
royal governor, but no relief was secured. 

Fiske says (Vol. I, p. 76) : 

"He not only stopped and searched every vessel that entered the bay, and 
seized whatever goods he pleased, whether there was any evidence of their being 
contraband or not, but, besides this, he stole the sheep and hogs of the farmers 
near the coast, cut down their trees, fired upon market boats, and behaved in 
general with unbearable insolence. . . . The Gaspee kept up her irritating 
behavior, until one evening in June, while chasing a swift American ship she 
ran aground. The following night she was attacked by a party of men in eight 
boats and captured after a short skirmish in which Duddington was wounded." 

43 



The vessel in question was the packet Hannah. She was a well- 
known trading vessel. She was not engaged in illicit traffic. Dudding- 
ton had no reason to believe that she was engaged in smuggling. She 
was ordered to lower her colors. She refused to do so. The Gaspee 
thereupon gave chase and grounded on a sand-bar. 

From the foregoing accounts, it appears that the Gaspee did not 
run "aground while chasing a smuggler." 

The statement in McLaughlin and Van Tyne that the Inter- 
colonial Correspondence Committees were organized as the result of an 
attack upon an English revenue cutter, the Gaspee, is an incomplete state- 
ment, and is apt to mislead. It should be made clear in what way the 
attack upon the Gaspee resulted in the organization of these committees. 

It was not the attack upon the Gaspee, but the threat of the British 
government to transport the perpetrators to England for trial which 
either hastened or brought about the organization of Inter-colonial 
Correspondence Committees. The Virginia resolutions of March 12, 
1773, recite that: 

"Whereas, the minds of his majesty's faithful subjects in this colony have 
been much disturbed by various rumors and reports of proceedings tending to 
deprive them of their ancient legal and constitutional right" . . . "Resolved, 
that the committee inform themselves" by what authority it is proposed, "to 
transmit persons accused of offences committed in America to places beyond the 
sea to be tried." 

Thus, it was not the burning of the Gaspee, but the avowed in- 
tention of the government to transport the perpetrators to England 
for trial which hastened the organization of Inter-colonial Correspond- 
ence Committees. At its worst, the burning of the Gaspee was a re- 
grettable act of lawlessness by a few people. The proposal to transport 
the perpetrators for trial to England was an invasion of fundamental 
rights affecting three million colonists. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

A textbook account of the Gaspee should contain among other 
facts the following: 

1. A statement of the provocative conduct of Duddington. 

2. A statement of England's error in threatening to transport the 

perpetrators to England for trial. 

3. A statement that the right to trial by jury of the vicinage is 

fundamental. 

44 



THE BOSTON MASSACRE 

The following objections submitted to the Committee are considered 
in the annexed monograph : 

To so much of McLaughlin and Van Tyne, Sec. 235, as states : 

"At last during such u conflict, forty or fifty men arued witn sticks and 
stones surrounded a small force of red-coated British soldiers and shouted: 
'Lobsn irs, Bloody-backs.' The alarmed soldiers fired into the mob, killing five 
and wounding six.' 

To so much of Guitteau, as states : 

"Stirred by the taunts of the crowd, which surrounded and threatened them, 
a company of eight soldiers under Captain Preston, at last fired, killing five 
men and wounding six others. . . Violent outbreaks also took place in 
several other colonies." 

To West : The whole account. 
The objections are to the effect that: 

1. In McLaughlin and Van Tyne, and in Guitteau, the accounts 

are not fair. 

2. In West, the account is partisan. 



CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTIONS 

The Boston Massacre was due primarily, to the presence in Boston 
of the British soldiers. In spite of protests, the soldiers were landed. 
In spite of constant clash and conflict with the citizens, they were re- 
tained in Boston when they should have been sent (as they were im- 
mediately after the massacre) to Castle William. 

The manner in which the troops were landed in Boston was well cal- 
culated to exasperate a liberty-loving people. Lossing describes their 
landing thus: 

"Under cover of the guns on the ships, the troops about seven hundred in 
number landed with loaded muskets, fixed bayonets, colors flying, drums beat- 
ing, and every other military parade used on entering the conquered city of an 
enemy . . . passengers in the streets were challenged, and other aggra- 
vating circumstances attended the entrance of the troops. Every strong feeling 
of the New Englander was outraged. His Sabbath was desecrated; his worship 
was disturbed." 

45 



The consequence was "mutual hatred" between citizen and soldier. 
"Rebel" and "Tyrant" were daily bandied between them. 

In March, 1770, a soldier got into a quarrel with some workmen and 
was severely beaten. He went to the barracks, and returning with some 
comrades, retaliated. In the afternoon, a number of people assembled to 
avenge the workmen. They were stopped by the military. It was Friday, 
and the act of vengeance was deferred until Monday, so as not to 
disturb the Sabbath. On Monday evening about 700 men with clubs 
and other weapons assembled in King street. About nine o'clock, an at- 
tack was made upon some soldiers, the people shouting "Down with the 
bloody-backs." As some of the people were passing the Custom House, 
a boy, pointing to the sentinel cried out : "That's the scoundrel who 
knocked me down." The people began to pelt him with ice and other 
missiles. He loaded his musket. Captain Preston came to his rescue 
with a guard of eight men. As they approached, they were pelted more 
furiously than the sentinel. During the confusion, noise, and disorder 
some one used the word "Fire." Attucks, one of the leaders of the 
people, who was struggling with a soldier, was shot dead. Three of the 
populace were instantly killed ; five were dangerously wounded and a few 
were slightly hurt. 

Captain Preston and his eight soldiers were arrested and put in 
jail on the charge of murder. A town meeting voted that nothing could 
restore peace and prevent carnage but the immediate removal of the 
troops. Samuel Adams, with a committee of fifteen, warned the Gov- 
ernor that 10,000 men would attack the soldiers unless they were im- 
mediately removed. At first the Governor claimed he had no authority 
to remove the soldiers, but Samuel Adams showed him that he had. On 
the following Monday, the troops were conducted to Castle William and 
Boston became quiet. 

John Adams and Josiah Quincy, two of Boston's most eminent 
lawyers, defended the soldiers. After a fair trial, Captain Preston and 
six of the soldiers were adjudged "not guilty." Two of them were con- 
victed of manslaughter, and were branded in the hand in open court and 
discharged. 

Lossing says: 

"This trial, when all the circumstances are considered, exhibits one of the 
most beautiful of the many pictures of the justice and mercy that characterized 

46 



the Revolution. It silenced forever the slander of the British Ministry 
(who favored the revival of the Act of Henry VIII) that American jurors might 
not be trusted." 

The essential facts which a textbook should bring out in connection 
with the Boston Massacre are the following: 

1. The maintenance of a standing army in Boston was offensive to 

the people. 

2. The presence of the soldiers was a constant source of exas- 

peration. 

3. The soldiers should have been taken out of Boston long before 

the massacre. 



47 



BOSTON TEA PARTY 

The following objections submitted to the Committee are considered 
in the annexed monograph : 

1. To so much of the account in McLaughlin and Van Tyne as 

describes the Boston Tea Party as "A violent act." 

2. To so much of the account in Gordy as states that by reason of 

the reduced taxes, the Colonists could have bought the tea 
more cheaply than "when the Colonists smuggled it from 
Holland." 

The objections are : 

1. The statements are derogatory. 

2. The accounts as a whole are unfair. 

CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTIONS 

The Boston Tea Party was one of the principal contributing causes 
of the American Revolution. It is full of dramatic incidents. The 
colonists had exerted every reasonable effort to induce Governor Hutch- 
inson to permit the return of the tea to England. He refused to grant 
the necessary permission on the ground that he was without authority. 

If the tea remained on board the ships in the harbor for twenty days, 
it would be necessary under the law to land the tea. If the tea were 
landed, it would lead to riot and disorder. The landing of the tea under 
such circumstances would have required the use of soldiers from the forts, 
and marines from the war ships. There were not enough of these on 
hand to furnish adequate protection. Moreover, there was grave doubt 
as to whether or not the British government would sustain the colonial 
officials if they employed soldiers and marines to protect the tea. There 
thus arose an almost impossible situation, for which there was but one 
peaceable solution — the throwing of the tea overboard. There is reason 
to believe that the British colonial officials and the leaders of the people 
of Boston were well satisfied with this solution. 

48 



Under such circumstances, we feel that McLaughlin and Van 
Tyne were not justified in describing the throwing of the tea overboard 
as an act of violence. The throwing of the tea overboard prevented 
violence. The incident looms too big, and too important in the struggle 
for freedom to justify any such derogatory characterization. Even 
Governor Hutchinson speaks of it, not as an act of violence, but as "the 
boldest stroke which had yet been struck in America." 



RECOMMENDATIONS 

In any account of the Boston Tea Party, the following facts should be 
brought out : 

1. The colonies were struggling for a principle. 

2. The attempt to send tea to Boston was a deliberate attempt on 

the part of the British authorities to bribe the people of Boston 
by offering them cheap tea. 

3. The Colonists exerted every reasonable effort to induce the Gov- 

ernor to permit the return of the tea. 

4. The landing of the tea would have led to riot and bloodshed. 

Under the circumstances, the destruction of the tea was re- 
grettable, but necessary. 

5. The incident should be described as a concrete exemplification 

of the spirit of resistance which animated the people. 



4'» 



CAUSES OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION AS STATED BY 
HART AND BY MCLAUGHLIN AND VAN TYNE 

The following objections submitted to the committee are considered 
in the annexed monograph: 

1. To so much of Chap. 8, Hart's New American History, as 

states : 

"To this day, it is not easy to see just why the colonists felt so dissatisfied." 

2. To so much of McLaughlin and Van Tyne, Sec. 246, as 

states : 

"There is little use in trying to learn whose fault it was that the war began, 
for, as we have seen, such a long train of events led to disagreement between 
England and America that we should have to go back and back to the very 
founding of the colonies. As in most quarrels, the blame for beginning is laid 
by each party on the other. It is enough for us to know that when Parliament 
decided to punish Boston, the king sent General Gage there to rule with British 
soldiers." 

The objections are 10 the effect: 

1. That a textbook writer who does not know why the colonists 

were dissatisfied, or who has yet to learn why the war began, is 
not equipped to write a textbook. 

2. The statement in Hart is in derogation of the reasons set 

forth in the Declaration of Independence. 



consideration of objections 

The statement in Hart that "To this day, it is not easy to see just 
why the colonists felt so dissatisfied," and the statement in McLaughlin 
and Van Tyne that "There is little use in trying to learn whose fault it 
was that the war began" are objectionable. 

Nor do we agree with McLaughlin and Van Tyne that "It is 
enough for us to know that when Parliament decided to punish Boston, 
the king sent General Gage there to rule with British soldiers." We can- 
not subscribe to such a narrow view. 

50 



WEST'S ACCOUNT OF SOME OF THE REASONS WHICH 
BROUGHT ABOUT THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR 



The following objections submitted to the Committee are considered 
in the annexed monograph : 

To Sections 214, 218, 219 in West's account of some of the reasons 
which brought about the Revolutionary War, on the ground that they 
are inaccurate and partisan. 



CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTIONS 

Section 214 leaves the impression that the Colonists were seeking 
an opportunity to break away from the mother country. The only au- 
thorities quoted are a Swedish traveler and Vergennes. Nothing is given 
to show that any responsible American held such views. True, the 
removal of the French from Canada left the Colonies free to begin con- 
spiracies, if they so desired, but the writer produces no evidence in sup- 
port of that view. The statement in its present form ought to be ex- 
cluded, unless the protestations of loyalty to the mother country are also 
cited. The section does not set forth historical facts ; it is not historical 
writing, but what used to be called Pamphleteering, and now "Propa- 
ganda." 

If a writer introduces an argumentative topic, he should give the 
arguments on both sides of the issue. Mr. West presents only the views 
of the Counsel for the crown. 

Section 218 — The author, in his insistence upon the necessity and 
propriety of Colonial contributions to the defense of the Empire, ought to 
state that several colonies, Massachusetts is a conspicuous example, con- 
tributed so largely to Imperial defenses that their financial resources 
were severely strained. The Colonies never denied their liability for 
expenditures in the common defense. Their objections were to the 
method of collecting revenue and to the issue, whether the moneys de- 
manded of them were moneys which had been expended in the common 
defense. 



51 



The writer is constantly finding defense for the course of action 
taken by the British Government. The American side of the argument is 
entirely ignored. 

Benjamin Franklin, in his examination before the House of Com- 
mons, testified as follows : 

Q. Do you think it right that America should be protected by this country 
and pay no part of the expense? 

A. That is not the case. The colonies raised, clothed and paid, during the 
last war, near twenty-five thousand men, and spent many millions. 

Q. Were you not reimbursed by the Parliament? 

A. We were only reimbursed what, in your opinion, we had advanced 
beyond our proportion, or beyond what might reasonably be expected from us; 
and it was a very small part of what we spent. Pennsylvania, in particular, 
disbursed about £500,000. and the reimbursements, in the whole, did not exceed 
£60,000. 

Q. Do you think the people of America would submit to pay the stamp 
duty if it was moderated? 

A. No, never, unless compelled by force of arms. 

Q. What was the temper of America toward Great Britain before the year 
1763? 

A. The best in the world. They submitted willingly to the government of 
the Crown, and paid, in their courts, obedience to acts of Parliament. Numerous 
as the people are in the several old provinces, thev cost vou nothing in forts, 
citadels, garrisons, or armies to keep them in subjection. They were governed 
by this country at the expense only of a little pen, ink, and paper; they were 
led by a thread. 

Section 219 — To charge the colonies with remissness in the Pontiac 
War is unfair. Indian operations were confined as a rule to frontier 
outposts formerly in French hands, and the colonies may well be ex- 
cused for deeming the matter a concern of the Home Government and 
not of theirs. Detroit and Mackinac were farther from the Colonists 
in those days than Vladivostock and the Desert of Gobi are from us. 
It is unfair to say that the colonies neglected their own defenses against 
the savages. The innumerable border fights are evidence to the con- 
trary. 

» The footnote is offensive and uncalled for. 

No Weddeburn, no crown advocate could plead the British cause 
in a more bitterly partisan spirit than West has done. 



52 



THE FIRST CONTINENTAL CONGRESS 

Objection was made to the Committee that the account of the First 
Continental Congress given in Barnes's History for Grammar Grades, 
Sec. 234, is inadequate and uninspiring. So far as essential the account 
reads as follows : 

"Its members felt that the time had conn/ when all patriots should act to- 
gether. Massachusetts was in open rebellion against the king. The British 
General, Gage, fearing attack was building earthworks to defend Boston. The 
Congress, hoping for peace, sent a respectable message to the king, pleading 
thai he would treal his colonies fairly. He refused to read it. This Fust Con- 
tinental Congress lasted for Dearly two months. The Congress had no power to 
make laws; it could only advise It did advise that all unite in putting pressure 
on the people of England, in the hope thai thus the king might be reached. It 
sent word to the Colonists asking them to agree to buy nothing from England, 
and to send no goods of any kmd to England. The effect was soon felt in Eng- 
land, whose Colonies were of value to her, for the trade they gave her, and the 
result was such as the Colonists had expected. The distress in England that 
came from the loss of trade gave the Whig party new strength." 

CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTIONS 

The writer has failed to take advantage of the valuable and inspiring 
material available for an account of the First Continental Congress, as 
appears from the following description of said Congress: 

The Continental Congress assembled in Philadelphia on September 5, 1774. 
The keynote of the Congress was struck by Patrick Henry when in his speech 
at the opening of business he said: 

"British oppression has effaced the boundaries of the several colonies; 

the distinction between Virginians, Pennsylvanians, and New Englanders is 

no more. I am not a Virginian, but an American." 

Henry's remarks were the text of every speech delivered thereafter. 

On the 11th of October, Congress adopted a declaration of colonial rights. 
This was followed on the 20th of October by the adoption of the American 
Association, or General Non-Importation League. The Congress agreed to an 
address to the people of Great Britain; a memorial To the inhabitants of the 
British-American colonies, an address to the inhabitants of the province of 
Quebec, and a petition to the king. 

The Congress was in session thirty-one days. Its proceedings produced a 
profound sensation everywhere. Chatham said of the Congress: 

"H i- the mosi honorable assembly of statesmen since those of the 

ancient Greeks and Romans in the most virtuous times." 

Of the petition to the king, Chatham said: 

"It is decent, manly, and properly expressed." 

RECOM MENDATIONS 

In a textbook account of the First Continental Congress, the writer 
should emphasize the high character of the members of the Congress, and 
the wisdom of their proceedings. Chatham's characterization, "it is the 
most honorable assembly of statesmen since those of the ancient Greeks 
and Romans in the most virtuous times," should be the keynote of the 
textbook account. 

53 



THE SECOND CONTINENTAL CONGRESS 

Objection has been made to the Committee to the account of the 
Second Continental Congress by Barnes, Sec. 24, Short American His- 
tory, Part II, on the ground that it is inappropriate. 

CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTIONS 

Barnes says that the Congress was : 

"A scene of petty bickerings and schemings through which single colonies 
sought to make gains for themselves. The little colonies wanted to have as 
much power as the big ones, and the big ones wanted to control the little ones. 
There was a scramble for honors and offices. In that Congress were selfish, un- 
worthy, shortsighted, narrow-minded, office-seeking, and office-trading plotters, 
just as there have been in every Congress, ever since." 

This account is so obviously inappropriate for school use that it 
should be eliminated. 

Unquestionably the Second Continental Congress was deficient in 
many respects. It committed many errors. But it labored under tre- 
mendous difficulties for lack of power, lack of resources, and because the 
spirit of union was just beginning to develop. The tie which held the 
colonies together was a sense of danger and not the brotherhood which 
holds the states at present in an indissoluble union. Instead of carping 
criticism, the writer might have called attention to some of the following 
which the Congress accomplished: 

1. It agreed to a manifesto setting forth the causes and the 

necessity for their taking up arms. Disclaiming all intention 
of separating from Great Britain and establishing inde- 
pendent states, it declared that, having been forced to take 
up arms, the colonists should put them down only when hos- 
tilities should have ceased on the part of the aggressors, and 
all danger of their being made slaves should disappear. 

2. It appointed a commander-in-chief with four major generals 

and eight brigadiers. 

3. It worked industriously in perfecting a national civil or- 

ganization. 

4. It authorized the issue of bills of credit to the amount of two 

million dollars for the support of the military forces. 

54 



5. It worked without power and without financial resources, to 

found and to defend an empire. 

6. It adopted the Declaration of Independence. 

7. It entered upon a policy of securing aid from foreign courts, and 

offered treaties of commerce to Prussia, Austria and Tuscany. 

8. It drew up a sketch for an offensive alliance with France and 

Spain against Great Britain. 

All of the above were done before the Battle of Trenton, at a time 
when Congress was without real power, without financial ability, and 
with the army beaten and in full retreat. A writer has well said : 

"The extent and intensity of the struggle of the Continental Congress dur- 
ing the fifteen years of its existence involved great personal sacrifices, much 
financial ability, unwearied patriotism, and abounding faith in the cause and its 
ultimate triumph." 

"The history of that Congress had no parallel. It was a spontaneous gath- 
ering of representative patriots to consult upon the public good. They boldly 
snatched the sceptre of political rule from their oppressors, and, assuming im- 
perial functions, created armies, issued bills of credit, declared the provinces 
to be independent states, made treaties, founded an empire, and compelled their 
king to acknowledge the states they represented to be independent of the 
British Crown. The brilliant achievements of that Congress astonished the 
world." 

To bring together thirteen colonies; to carry on a mighty war 
against the greatest military power in the world; to enter into alliance 
with European nations ; to satisfy conflicting demands and interests — to 
do all this with no power to enforce and practically, with no financial 
resources, was indeed, a brilliant achievement. It could never have been 
accomplished by a congress composed of "selfish, unworthy, short- 
sighted, narrow-minded, office-seeking, and office-trading plotters." If 
such men were in that Congress, they were few in number, and of little 
influence in the ultimate result, for the things achieved could only be 
accomplished by unwearied patriotism and abounding faith in the right- 
eousness of the cause and its ultimate triumph. 

The writer who duly appreciates the difficulties under which the 
Second Continental Congress labored during the fifteen years of its 
existence, and who is inspired by its brilliant and lasting achievements, 
has no time to waste upon its insignificant failures and short-comings. 
They are inevitable in the organization and conduct of any great move- 
ment. 

55 



HOW HANCOCK AND ADAMS LEFT LEXINGTON ON APRIL 

19, 1775 

Objection has been made to the Committee to so much of McLaugh- 
lin and Van Tyne, Sec. 247, as alleges : 

"As the British soldiers, who had left Boston at midnight, neared Lexing- 
ton in the early morning- of April 19, 1775, Adams and Hancock stole away 
across the fields, but on the village green stood a line of Massachusetts militia- 
men. They held their ground bravely." 

The objection is that the account gives the impression that while the 
militia stood their ground, Adams and Hancock were too cowardly to 
they "stole away." 

consideration of objection 

The statement was read to a class of school teachers taking a course 
in American history. They unanimously agreed that the account led them 
to think that Adams and Hancock were too cowardly to fight, and so 
they "stole away." 

Adams and Hancock were not cowards. Hancock was the richest 
man in the province. He risked his fortune in aiding the patriots. Sam- 
uel Adams was a poor man. Samuel Adams was uncompromisingly 
devoted to the cause of his country, and was incorruptibly honest. Both 
Adams and Hancock had been offered public station by the British. Of 
Adams, Thomas Hutchinson, the Royal Governor of Massachusetts, 
wrote : 

"He is of such an obstinate and inflexible disposition that no gift, nor office, 
would ever conciliate him." 

In the Proclamation, issued June 12, 1775, in which he offered a 
free pardon to all who forthwith returned to their allegiance, General 
Gage specifically excepted Adams and Hancock, who were outlawed, 
and for whom he offered a reward as "arch traitors." 

Harper's Encyclopedia of U. S. History, Lossing, and Bancroft 
agree in saying that : 

"Hancock and Adams were persuaded to retire to a more secure place." 
Fiske, vol. I, p. 122, says: 

56 



"Hancock's first impulsi was to stay and take command of the militia, but 
it was presently agreed thai there was no good reasoL for his doing so,' and 
shortly before daybreak, in company with Adams, he left the village." 

Manifestly, Adams and Hancock did not steal away. They left 
because they were persuaded not to risk their lives, as they were needed 
in the council chamber. They were then on their way to the Continental 
Congress in Philadelphia. 

The word "stole" is objectionable. It should be eliminated and a 
more appropriate word substituted. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

In any textbook account of Lexington, Hancock, and Adams, the 
following facts should be brought out: 

1. General Gage regarded Hancock and Adams as "arch rebels." 

2. Gage had excluded Hancock and Adams from his pardon 

proclamation. He was very anxious to capture them. His 
desire to do so was one of the causes which brought about the 
Battle of Lexington. 

3. Hancock and Adams were men of great bravery and courage. 

They were ready to risk all in the cause of their country. 

4. Hancock and Adams were persuaded to retire to a place of 

safety as they were needed in the council chamber. 



57 



WHO BEGAN THE BATTLE OF LEXINGTON 

The following objections submitted to the Committee are considered 
m the annexed monograph : 

1. To Hart's New American History in so far as it alleges that the 

Americans began firing. 

2. To Hart's Revised School History in so far as it alleges that the 

English probably began the attack. 

The objections are to the effect: 

That the first statement is incorrect and the second evasive. 

In his New American History Hart says : 

"It is uncertain how the fight began ; an English officer who was present at 
the battle says : 'On our approach they dispersed and soon after the firing began ; 
but which party fired first I cannot exactly say, as our troops rushed on shout- 
ing and huzzaing previous to the firing.' " 

In his Revised School History, Section 97, Hart gives the follow- 
ing account of the same event: 



"Early in the morning of April 19th, the British reached the village of Lex- 
ington, and there was a line of militiamen drawn up across the road. 'Disperse, 
ye rebels,' cried Major Pitcairn, the British commander; but the raw colonials 
held their ground. A shot was fired, probably by the English." 

Thus Hart gives two versions of the same account. 

Lossing in his Pictorial Field Book of the Revolution, Vol. I, page 

524, says: 



"As the patriots did not instantly obey the command to lay down their 
arms, Pitcairn wheeled his horse, and, waving his sword, gave orders to press 
forward and surround the militia. At the same moment some random shots 
were fired by the British, but without effect, which were promptly returned by 
the Americans. Pitcairn then drew his pistol and discharged it, at the same 
moment giving the word Tire!'" 

In Harper's Encyclopedia of United States History we find the 
following account: 

58 



"As the Americans refused to disperse, Pitcairn ordered his men to fire. 
The order was obeyed, and the Revolutionary war was begun.'' 

Hildreth, Vol. 3, page 67, says : 

"The head of the British column came suddenly upon them (meaning the 
Minute Men), led by two or three officers who called upon the Minute Men to 
throw down their arms and disperse. When these orders were not instantly 
obeyed a volley was bred, !>y which eight of the Minute .Men were killed and 
several wounded. The British allege, however, thai the Minute Men tired first." 

Thomas Higginson says : 

"Before 5 A. M. on April 19, 1775, the British troops had reached Lexington 
Green, where 38 men under Captain Parker stood up before 000 or 800 to be 
shot at, their Captain saying, 'Don't fire unless you are fired on; but if they 
want a war let it begin here; It began there; they wire lired upon; they lired 
rather ineffectually in return while seven were killed and nine wounded." 

Bancroft says : 

''The captain, John Parker, ordered every man to load with powder and 
ball, but to take care not to be the first to fire." 

Lossing says : 

"The minute men had been ordered not to draw a trigger until fired upon 
by the enemy." 

Fiske says: 

"When Pitcairn reached Lexington, he found himself confronted by some 
fifty minute men under command of Captain John Parkek, who, fifteen years 
before, had climbed the Heights of Abraham by the side of Wolfe. 'Don't fire 
unless you are fired on,' said Parker, 'but if they want a war, it may as well 
begin here.' 'Disperse, ye villains!' shouted Pitcairn. 'Damn you. why don't 
you disperse?' And as they stood motionless, he gave the order to fire. As the 
soldiers hesitated to obey, he discharged his own pistol and repeated the order, 
whereupon a deadly volley slew eight of the minute men and wounded ten." 

Thus the weight of evidence is that the Americans were determined, 
should there be a conflict of arms, not to be the first to fire, and that 
they were not the first to fire. 

What educational value is there in speculating as to who fired the 
first shot? The writer should have but one thought: To give a vivid 
and inspiring picture of fifty untrained minute men, facing 800 of Eng- 
land's best soldiers, their commander determined not to be the first to 
fire, but determined that "If they want war, let it begin here." We can 
think of nothing more inspiring and heroic. 

59 



BATTLE OF BUNKER HILL 

The following objections submitted to the Committee are considered 
in the annexed monograph : 

To so much of the account in McLaughlin and Van Tyne, as 
states : 

"But British pluck triumphed." 

To so much of the account in Barnes, as states : 

"To march, as those British soldiers did, straight up to the works, so near 
that each one felt that the man who was aiming at him could not miss, require*, 
a nerve as steady as was ever shown on a battlefield."' 

To some books generally. 

The objections are to the effect that: 

1. The statement "British pluck triumphed" is untrue. 

2. Barnes and McLaughlin and Van Tyne have stressed the 

courage of the British so markedly that their account is in 
derogation of the courage of the Americans. 

3. Few books have used with adequate dramatic force the material 

available. 



CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTIONS 

Though comparative studies of courage appeal powerfully to the 
imagination of the pupil, our chief interest in the battle is not that topic. 
As teachers, our primary interest in the battle is the opportunity it 
affords to teach pupils the power of justice. The untrained civilian, 
farmer, clerk, mechanic, fighting in a just cause, given a reasonable op- 
portunity to develop, rapidly becomes a better fighter than the regular 
soldier battling in a cause which is unrighteous. We have no objection 
to crediting both sides with the utmost courage. It is enough for us to 
know, that while his powder lasted, the untrained farmer gave successful 
battle to the best trained soldiers in the world. 

In order to show what a wealth of inspiring material is available, 
we submit the following article prepared by a member of this Committee. 

60 



As the textbook writer can use but a small part of this material, it is 
manifest that there is no occasion for his using any material which is 
not inspiring. 



The Battle of Bunker Hill 

American history has no more dramatic event than the first set battle 
of the Revolution. Nothing shows more concretely the intensity of the 
feeling against British aggression. Nowhere has the spirit of liberty 
blazed forth more fiercely or gloriously. This was the acid test of the 
Colonial troops, and it is also one of the best topics for determining to 
what extent a writer of history has succeeded in making his presentation 
inspiring and effective. The author who fails to bring out the emotional 
appeal in describing this battle has little reason to write history for 
American schools. 

Soon after the fight at Lexington and Concord an American army 
of 16,000 men surrounded Boston and constructed fortifications to shut 
in the British army under General Gage. 

Boston at that time occupied a peninsula almost surrounded by hills 
on the mainland and on the Charlestown peninsula, a mile north of Bos- 
ton, with two heights, Bunker's Hill and Breed's Hill, overlooking the 
town of Charlestown at their base, and all Boston on the opposite penin- 
sula. 

Both British and American forces planned to fortify this Charles- 
town peninsula, but the Americans learned that the British expected to 
begin on the 18th of June, so they made hurried preparations to seize the 
heights on the night of the 16th. 

At six o'clock Friday evening, June 16th, about 1,200 New England 
men. under the command of Colonel William Prescott, paraded on 
Cambridge Common and after an impressive prayer by President Lang- 
PON of Harvard College, began their portentious march to Charlestown. 

Only a limited amount of ammunition and provisions was supplied, 
as it was expected that the first party, after working all night on the 
redoubt, would be relieved the next morning by fresh troops. 

When the troops reached Charlestown, part of them were posted as 
guards to keep watch on the British warships anchored nearby around 
the peninsula, and the sentinels patrolling the opposite Boston shore. The 
rest worked rapidly all night in digging out a redoubt and throwing up 
breastworks of earth. 

Shortly before sunrise the American fortifications were discovered 
by sailors on board the British men-of-war. and soon a terrific can- 
nonading roused all Boston from sleep to see the strange, terrible, but 
magnificent spectacle. 

61 



During the entire morning an incessant bombardment of the re- 
doubt was continued from the men-of-war, several floating batteries, and 
the fort on Copp's Hill in Boston. British soldiers who had fought on 
European battlefields testified that the cannonading was the heaviest they 
had ever witnessed. Lieutenant Samuel Webb, who was in the redoubt, 
wrote to his brother the next day: "Cannon and musket balls were 
flying about our ears like hail, and a hotter fire you can have no idea of 
. . . bombs, chain-shot, ring-shot and double-headed shot, flew thick 
as hailstones, but thank Heaven, few of our men suffered by them; but 
when we mounted the summit, good God, how the balls flew. I freely 
acknowledge I never had such a tremor come over me before. . . . 
We fought against eight or ten capital ships' fire, the fire from Copp's 
Hill in Boston, of 2-+-pounders, and the regulars' fieldpieces, together 
with shells ; when on our side nothing but small arms were fired, except 
four guns fired by General Putnam after the gunners quitted the field- 
pieces." 

General Howe probably hoped that this terrific bombardment would 
drive the "peasants," as he contemptuously called them, from the heights 
without his risking any of his troops. He was greatly mistaken. Colonel 
Prescott walked coolly back and forth on top of the parapet, watched 
by General Gage through a field-glass. "Who is the commander?" asked 
Gage of a colonist standing near him. On being informed that it was 
Colonel Prescott, he asked, "Will he fight?" "Yes," was the reply, 
"he is an old soldier, and will fight as long as a drop of blood remains in 
his veins." "Then the works must be taken by assault," said Gage, and 
gave orders immediately for troops to be sent to storm the redoubt. 

Meanwhile the patriots had completed their fortifications, and were 
anxiously awaiting the arrival of the promised reinforcements and re- 
freshments. Their barrels of drinking water had been shattered by the 
bombardment, their food supply was exhausted, and most of the men 
were worn out by watching and working all night, and standing fire all 
morning, under a boiling hot June sun, crowded together in a dry, dusty 
redoubt, with no shelter or rest from duty. 

There was a suspicion, too, in the minds of some, that a blunder or 
treachery had left them here as a useless sacrifice. This feeling was 
intensified as they saw boatload after boatload of British "regulars" land 
without the least opposition at the east end of the peninsula, while their 
own cannon, which might have opposed or prevented the landing, were 
nowhere to be seen. "When our officers saw that the regulars intended 
to land," wrote Peter Brown to his mother a week later, "they ordered 
the artillery to go out of the fort and prevent their landing, if possible; 
from whence the artillery captain took his field-pieces, and went right 
home to Cambridge fast as he could — for which he is now confined, and 
we expect he will be shot for it." 

At noon, while the blazing sun was making a bake oven of the dusty 
little redoubt on Breed's Hill, all the British cannon redoubled their fire, 
-bile 28 barges, filled with bright scarlet uniforms, and bristling with 

62 



field-pieces, bayonets and side arms, moved majestically in two parallel 
columns across from Boston and landed 2,000 of the King's best soldiers, 
experienced, confident and fully equipped, on Moulton's Point. Still 
hoping that the "peasants" would "run like rabbits" at the sight of this 
show of force, the British generals spread out their troops deliberately 
along the brow of the hill, and allowed them an hour for lunch. Tubs 
of liquid refreshments were placed here and there among the men, who 
chatted merrily over their lunch, while the Americans wiped the dust and 
sweat from their eyes, and wondered when their refreshments would 
come. 

Meanwhile all the housetops of Boston and the hilltops and buildings 
in all directions were covered with people, many of them near relatives 
or dear friends of the troops on Breed's Hill, watching the brilliant and 
awful moving picture which was being exhibited before them. Perhaps 
this is one of the reasons why the British generals rejected the certain 
plan of seizing the neck of the peninsula, and capturing the entire Amer- 
ican force without fighting, and adopted the more spectacular method of 
direct frontal attack, expecting to give an emphatic object lesson to the 
thousands of colonists who were watching the conflict. 

Before the British troops were ready for the charge, a small number 
of additional American soldiers filtered through the raking fire across 
Charlestown Neck, and took up a position along the breastworks north 
of the redoubt. Consequently General Howe sent for additional rein- 
forcements, which arrived about three o'clock, bringing the total British 
force up to 3,000. These new troops under General Pigot advanced 
directly on the redoubt, while the others, under General Howe, moved 
forward on the right to attack the Americans back of the rail fence and 
endeavor to encircle the redoubt. 

Now came the real crisis in the American ranks. The former can- 
nonading continued with increased violence, and field-pieces were placed 
so as to bring a raking fire across the redoubt. At the same time the ad- 
vancing columns opening a hot musketry fire along the whole front, with 
the regularity of troops on parade. They had been assured that the 
"rebels" would break and run before them, and they came on with un- 
bounded confidence in their superiority. 

Meanwhile the American officers were quietly encouraging their 
weary men for the supreme test, while the fate of American Democracy 
trembled in the balance. Had the patriots failed to stand their ground 
manfully at this crisis, the tradition of British military supremacy would 
have been confirmed, and the recent confidence in the colonial military 
power would have been nipped in the bud. Despite the continuous strain 
which they had undergone for nearly twelve hours without cessation, no 
one broke down or faltered. Only the low words of caution were heard 
as the British came steadily on. "Don't waste a shot," the officers said. 
"Fire low"; "Aim at their waistbands"; "Wail till you see the white- of 
their eyes"; "Aim at the handsome coats"; "Pick off the commanders." 

63 



"They will never reach our breastworks," said Prescott, "if you will only 
follow my directions." 

Finally, when the red lines were less than fifty yards away, the order 
was given to fire. The whole front of the British line fell, like grass 
before a mower. For a moment they faltered, then fled in confusion 
down the hill and back to the landing place. The Americans raised an 
exulting shout of victory, and could hardly be prevented from leaving 
their fortifications to pursue the retreating enemy. 

In a short time, however, the British officers were seen trying, with 
passionate gestures, to rally their men, even beating and pushing them on 
with their swords. Finally, after Charlestown had been set on fire to 
help cover the advance, the British troops came up, with evident reluc- 
tance, the second time. 

"And now ensued one of the greatest scenes of war that can ibe conceived. 
To fill the eye — a brilliantly appointed army advancing to the attack and 
storming the works, supported by co-operating ships and batteries; the blaze 
of the burning town, coursing whole streets or curling up the spires of public 
edifices; the air above filled with clouds of dense smoke, and the surrounding 
hills, fields, roofs, and steeples, occupied by crowds of spectators; to fill the ear 
— the shouts of the contending armies, the crash of the falling buildings, and 
the roar of cannon, mortars. and musketry; to fill the mind — the high courage 
of men staking not only their lives, but their reputation, on the uncertain issues 
of a civil war; and the intense emotions of the near and dear connections stand- 
ing in their presence; and, on the other side, the reflection that a defeat of the 
regulars would be a final loss to the British Empire in America." 

Again the red columns came steadily up the hill, while a terrific 
cross-fire from their field-pieces raked the whole American position. 
Again the cool marksmen behind the fortifications picked out their targets 
with deadly certainty, waited until the enemy were almost upon them, 
and then discharged such a hurricane of fire that human endurance could 
not withstand it. After a short, stubborn resistance, the whole British 
line gave way again and retreated in greater disorder than before, some 
even taking refuge in the boats. 

Over an hour elapsed this time before the British renewed the attack, 
and it seems likely that the attempt would have been abandoned, had they 
not discovered that the American ammunition was almost all gone. This 
news, together with the arrival of General Clinton with fresh troops, 
aroused the determination to try another assault. The soldiers were in- 
structed to reserve their fire, concentrate on the redoubt, and charge with 
fixed bayonets. The field guns were moved forward to a still more 
effective position, and from three directions the King's soldiers advanced 
reluctantly for the third time against the redoubt. 

Matters were now in a serious condition within the fortification. 
The onlv powder left was what had been taken from a few artillery 
cartridges and the soldiers were making bullets by cutting pieces from 
lead pipes taken from an old pipe organ in Cambridge. Not one man in 
ten had a bayonet, and many of the garrison had been on duty continu- 

64 



ously for almost twenty-four hours. Prudence would have compelled 
a retreat, had any but the most invincible spirits held this redoubt. Re- 
solved to sell the hill as dearl) as possible, the Americans in the fort 
gathered stones and cluhs to use when their ammunition was gone, 
and stubbornly awaited the charge of the enemy. 

When the British lines approached the redoubt the third time, they 
were allowed to come within twenty yards before a shot was fired. 
Although the volley that came then staggered them, they quickly rallied 
and charged fiercely over the fortifications, where the defenders, whose 
last round had been fired, fought like demons, with clubbed muskets, 
stones, knives, fists, and even guns wrested from the invaders. When 
further resistance became absolutely hopeless, Pkescott ordered a re- 
treat, and slowly fell back, facing the enemy and parrying bayonet thrusts 
with his sword as he fought Ids way out of the dust clouded fort with 
the last of his men. The forces guarding the rail fence gallantly cov- 
ered the retreat of their comrades, and delayed the enemy until the main 
body of the Americans was safely past Bunker" Hill. Here the cannon 
of the enemy did terrible execution, as the colonists crossed the brow of 
the hill and Charlestown Neck, the greater part of the day's losses being 
suffered here. 

Nominally, Bunker Hill was a defeat for the colonists, as they lost 
the position and over four hundred men. The British, however, lost 
not only a thousand men, but what was far more significant, the prestige 
which had previously been accorded trained troops in comparison 
with colonial militia. Even in England, the true significance of the battle 
was soon seen. Governor Johnstone, speaking in the House of Com- 
mons October 30, 1775, said: 

"'I'd a mind that loves to contemplate the glorious spiril of freedom, no 
spectacle can be more affecting thin the action at Bunker Hill. To see an 
irregular peasantry, commanded iby a physician, inferior in number, opposed 
by every circumstance of cannon and bombs that could terrify timid minds, 
calmly await the attack of the gallant Howb, leading on the besl troops in the 
world, with an excellent train of artillery, and twice repulsing those very 
troops, who had often chased the chosen battalions of France, and at last 
retiring for want of ammunition, but in so respectable a manner thai they were 
not even pursued — who can reflect on such scenes, and not adore the constitu- 
tion of government which could breed such men!" 

When news of the battle reached General Washington, he inquired 
anxiously whether the New England militia had stood the fire of the 
regulars. When told how coolly and effectively they had held their 
ground, he exclaimed "The liberties of the country are safe !" The 
greatest result, however, of the Battle of Bunker Hill was that it con- 
vinced Washington, Franklin, and many other American leaders, that 
the coloni-ts would be justified in asserting, and competent to maintain, 
their independence of Great Britain. 

The English historian LECKY, who had no reason for magnifying the 
accomplishments of the Americans, says of this battle: 

65 



"The battle of Breed's, or, as it is commonly called, of Bunker Hill, though 
extremely bloody in proportion to the number of men engaged, can hardly be 
said to present any very remarkable military character, and in a great European 
war it would have been almost unnoticed. Few battles, however, have had more 
important consequences. It roused at once the fierce instinct of combat in 
America, weakened seriously the only British army in New England, and dis- 
pelled forever the almost superstitious belief in the impossibility of encounter- 
ing regular troops with hastily levied volunteers." 

John Fiske, whose stalwart personality and dramatic style stand 
out in bold relief in comparison with the "pussyfooting" of some more 
recent historians says in discussing this engagement: 

"The moral effect of the Battle of Bunker Hill was remarkable. It was 
for the British a decided and important victory, inasmuch as they had not only 
gained the ground for which the battle was fought, but by so do:ng, they suc- 
ceeded in keeping their hold upon Boston for nine months longer. Neverthe- 
less, the moral advantage was felt to be entirely on the side of the Americans." 

The official report of General Gage, published in the London Gazette, 
says in part : 

"These orders were executed with perseverance, under a heavy fire from the 
vast numbers of the rebels. This action has shown the superiority of the king's 
troops, who, under every disadvantage, attacked and defeated above three times 
their own number, strongly posted, and covered by breastworks. The valor of 
British officers and soldiers was at no time more conspicuous than in this action." 

On July 7, \77S, the Provincial Congress ordered the Massachusetts 
Committee of Safety "to draw up and transmit to Great Britain as soon 
as possible a fair, honest, and impartial account of the late battle of 
Charlestown, on the seventeenth ultimo, so that our friends, and others 
in that part of the world, may not be, in any degree, imposed upon by 
General Gage's misrepresentation of that day's transactions." In this 
account, prepared by "Reverend Dr. Cooper, Rev. Dr. Gardner, and 
Rev. Mr. Peter Thatcher," we read : 

"This fire arrested the enemy, which they for some time returned, without 
advancing a step, and then retreated in disorder, and with great precipitation 
to the place of landing, and some of them sought refuge even within their 
boats. Here the officers were observed by the spectators on the opposite shore, 
to run down to them, using the most passionate gestures, and pushing the men 
forward with their swords. At length they were rallied, and marched up, with 
apparent reluctance, toward the entrenchment; the Americans again reserved 
their fire until the enemy came within five or six rods, and a second time put 
the Regulars to flight, who ran in great confusion toward their boats. Similar 
and superior exertions were now necessarily made by the officers, which, not- 
withstanding the men discovered a*i almost insuperable reluctance to fighting in 
this cause, were again successful. The officers, in the rear of their army, were 
observed to goad forward the men with renewed exertions, and they attacked 
the redoubt on three sides at once." 

"The ammunition of the Provincials was expended, and few of their arms 
were fixed with bayonets. Can it then be wondered that the word was given 
by the commander of the party to retreat?" 

66 



Governor Johnston, in his speech in the House of Commons, 
October 30, 1775, speaks of the colonists "at last retiring for want of 
ammunition, but in so respectable a manner that they were not even 
pursued. 

On the basis of the foregoing facts, the Committee finds as follows: 

1. That the objection to the statement by McLaughlin and Van 

Tyne "British pluck prevailed" is well taken. 

2. The accounts in some of the textbooks are inadequate, as appears 

from the following : 

Beard and Beard give three lines to the battle ; 

Hart, six lines; 

Beard and Bagley, ten lines ; 

Some books give no account of the battle. 

3. With regard to the account given in Barnes, the Committee feels 

that the objection is not well taken, because of the fact that 
the criticism is directed against an isolated statement taken 
from an otherwise good account. 



recommendations 

In any textbook account of the Battle of Bunker Hill, the following 
should be brought out : 

1. The circumstances which led to the fortifying of the hill. 

2. The superiority of the British forces in numbers and in equip- 

ment. 

3. The three charges of the British and the reason for their ultimate 

success. 

4. How righteous indignation and a just cause made the untrained 

colonists more than a match for the best trained soldiers of 
Europe. 

5. The important consequences of the battle: 

a. Its inspiring effect upon the Americans ; 

b. Its depressing effect upon the British. 

67 



SIEGE OF BOSTON 

Objection has been made to the Committee to the account of the 
siege of Boston in Section 249 of McLaughlin and Van Tyne on the 
ground that the account as a whole is derogatory and educationally 
worthless. Special objection is made to the statements: 

1. "It was a strange army that had gathered there like maddened 
hornets." 

2. "One could not tell an officer from a private by the uniform, and 
often not by his actions." 



CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTIONS 

The reference to the officers may, or may not, have been intended as 
a sneer, but there can be no doubt that the reference to the Patriots as 
"maddened hornets" is in inexcusably bad taste. 

As one visions the siege of Boston, — a large British army of well 
disciplined and well equipped soldiers, held at bay by a hastily gathered 
army of farmers, poorly equipped, and poorly disciplined, one cannot but 
marvel at what was transpiring. 

The best soldiers in the world held at bay by a gathering of farmers ! 
What a vast difference between the inspirational character of what hap- 
pened and the account given by McLaughlin and Van Tyne. 

We deem further comment unnecessary. 



(>S 



VALLEY FORGE 

The following objection submitted to the Committee is considered in 
the annexed monograph : 

To so much of Sec. 286 McLaughlin and Van Tyne, as states: 

''There his soldiers suffered from want, partly because Congress could 
not get money from the states, and partly because unfit men in the Army 
Supply Department neglected their work;' 

The ground of the objection is that the account is unfair and out of 
place. 

CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTION 

Conceding Congress was unable to raise money and that official in- 
competence was responsible in a very marked degree for the sufferings 
of the soldiers at Valley Forge, it serves no educational value to feature 
those facts in a textbook account of the "Winter at Valley Forge." The 
primary interest lies not in the account of official incompetence, but in the 
unconquerable patriotism which endured indescribable sufferings. The 
child should be led to see that the soldiers loved their country with a love 
so intense that they endured hunger, starvation, and bitter cold. Without 
shoes, without clothing, the blood-stains from their feet marking their 
path across the snow, they never wavered in their loyalty and patriotism. 

Lossing says : 

"Hunger and nakedness assailed that dreary camp with all their progeny 
of disease and woe. Thither the soldiers came with naked and bleeding feet, 
and there they sat down, where destitution held court and ruled with an icy 
sceptre." 

Harper's Encyclopedia says : 

"Blood stains made by the lacerated feet of his barefooted soldiers 
marked the line of their march to Valley Forge. They were encamped with 
^10 shelter, buf rude huts which they built themselves. The ( winter was 

re. The soldiers shivered with cold and starved with hunger, and there, 
their genuine patriotism was fully tested." 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

In any textbook account of the "Winter at Valley Forge," the aim 
should be to show the intense patriotism of the American soldiers. All 
subsidiary and collateral matters should be omitted, unless they help to 
give vividness and dramatic force to the sufferings of the soldiers. 

69 



JBURGOYNE'S CAMPAIGN— SARATOGA— FRENCH HELP 

The following objections submitted to the Committee are considered 
in the annexed monograph : 

To so much of the account in Barnes, Part II, Sec. 49, as states : 

''Franklin sent word to Congress that very soon France would cease 
to give 'stealthy help' and would become the open ally of the United States." 

To so much of Section 51, as states: 

1 "Thus England was now fighting single handed against three nations." 
2. "He (meaning George III) would show them favors far greater than 
they had ever sought if they stopped fighting." 

To the whole account as showing no enthusiasm or rejoicing at the 
fact that the Americans had prevailed at Saratoga. 

To so much of the account in McLaughlin and Van Tyne, Section 
283, as states : 

"That the French helped America because of their bitter hatred of the 
English, due to the fact that the English had driven them out of Canada." 

CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTIONS 

The statement that Franklin sent word to Congress that France 
would cease to give "stealthy" help is objectionable. There is no occasion 
for the use of the word "stealthy." 

The statement that "England was now fighting single handed against 
three nations," is unfair: 

1. England had no difficulty in hiring Hessian soldiers. Thus we 
were fighting not only England, but England and the Hessians. 

2. In the declaration of war against England, Spain said not one 
word about America. After seven months of hostilities, Spain repented 
going into the war and charged that France had brought her into the war 
for its own interests alone. Spanish diplomacy feared American inde- 
pendence because of its effect upon the Spanish colonies. 

3. In the early part of 1780, Spain sought to effect a treacv of 
peace with England through the intervention of the King of Portugal. 

4. Spain was not interested in the independence of the colon r es, but 
in recovering Gibralter. 

70 



5. Because of her great superiority on the ocean England had prac- 
tically no difficulty in sending supplies and soldiers to America. France, 
because of. her naval inferiority, had considerable difficulty. 

The statement that France in helping the colonies was actuated solely 
by hatred of England, and a desire for revenge because of the loss of 
her American colonies, is neither correct nor fair. 

Guitteau points out that England offered to return to France her 
American possessions if she would abandon the colonies, but that France 
refused to do so. 

Up to this point the preponderance of successes had been with the 
British. Practically at the very moment of the surrender of Burgoyne, 
\\ asiiington was suffering defeats in Pennsylvania. Congress had fled 
from Philadelphia. Its treasury was exhausted. 

The highest hopes of the British nation and the most sanguine ex- 
pectations of the King and his ministers rested upon the success of the 
campaign — the people were confidently assured that, with the undoubted 
success of Burgoyne, the turbulent spirit of the rebellion would be quelled 
and the insurgents be forced to return to their allegiance. When the 
mournful tidings were communicated to Parliament, the news aroused 
the fire of opposing parties. Leaning upon his crutch, the Earl of 
Chatham opposed a laudatory address to the King and denounced the 
ministry : 

"This, my Lords, is a perilous moment! Tt is no time for adulation. It 
is now necessary to instruct the throne in the language of truth. You cannot 
conquer America. You may pile and accumulate every assistance you can 
buy or borrow; traffic and barter with every little pitiful German prince that 
sells and sends his subjects to the shambles of a foreign power; your efforts 
are forever vain and impotent. To overrun with the mercenary sons of 
rapine and plunder, devoting them and their possessions to the rapacity of 
hireling cruelty! It I were an American as I am an Englishman, while a 
foreign troop was landed in my country,- I would never lay down my arms— 
never, never, never." 

In the lower house, Burke, Fox and Barre were equally severe upon 
the ministers. 

When it became evident that France would help us, Lord North 
produced a conciliatory plan, on February 17th, eleven days after a 
treaty had been signed between France and the United States. His pro- 
posals contemplated quieting the minds of the colonists in regard to taxa- 
tion. He proposed to treat with Congress as if it were a legal body; to 
suspend hostilities; intermit the operation of the laws, grant pardons, im- 

71 



munities and rewards; restore charters and constitutions, and nominate 
governors, magistrates, etc., until the pleasure of the King was known. 
The renunciation of the independence of the colonies was not to be in- 
sisted upon until a definitive treaty had been ratified by king and parlia- 
ment. The colonies were to contribute a moderate and reasonable amount 
toward the common defense of the empire, when reunited; but this was 
not to be insisted upon as a sine qua non. The proposals were rejected. 

The treaty between the United States and France provided among 
other things: The independence of the United States as an essential 
end of the alliance; the two parties agreed not to lay down their arms 
until that independence was secured by a treaty terminating the war with 
England. 

Without France we could not have achieved our independence. 
The effects of the alliance were: 

1. It gave us immediate and necessary material aid. 

2. It created a strong peace party in England, willing to give the 

colonies independence. 

3. It divided England's fighting strength. 

4. It created throughout the European continent a sympathetic at- 

titude toward America. England fought knowing that uni- 
versal sympathy was against her. 

In giving an account of the help which France gave us, there is no 
room for discussion of adverse motives. France helped us. She should 
be given full credit. 

In Section 51 of Barnes appears this statement: 

"The kins; ceased to be arrogant. He pleaded for peace. He would forgive 
the rebels. He would grant all the colonies wanted. He would do anything 
for the sake of peace with his colonies." 

To have granted all that the colonies wanted, would have put an 
end to the war at once. The King was opposed to granting independence 
to the colonies, and he was not in sympathy with the conciliatory 
measures. 

When on the 20th of November, 1777, the King of England opened 
the session of parliament, he insisted on a continuation of the war, "with- 
out regard to the waste of life or treasure." 

72 



RECOMMENDATIONS 

In any account of the Battle of Saratoga, the following should be 
brought out : 

1. The credit due to Schuyler, Arnold, Morgan, Spark, Her- 

kimer, etc. 

2. Until after Burgoyne's surrender, the British had the better of 

the war. 

3. The surrender heartened the colonies ; gave them large sup- 
plies ; won France into open alliance, and created a very 
friendly attitude on the part of European countries. 

4. In the treaty with France, France pledged herself to help us win 

our independence. 

5. The surrender of Burgoyne divided the parliament and it 

divided the English people. A strong faction in and out of 
parliament was ready to acknowledge the independence of the 
Colonies. 



n 



YORKTOWN AND THE SURRENDER OF CORNWALLIS 

Objection Iras been made to some of the accounts on the ground that 
they are not inspiring. 

CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTIONS 

In order to show what a wealth of inspiring material is available, we 
submit the following article prepared by a member of this Committee. As 
the textbook writer can use but a small part of this material, it is manifest 
that there is no occasion for his using any material which is not inspiring. 

Yorktown 

The decisive character of the Battle of Yorktown was recognized 
here and in England. To Lord North in his office in Downing street, 
London, it was as crushing as Waterloo was to be years after to 
Napoleon. To the Americans, celebrating the victory with bonfires, pro- 
cessions, meetings, ox-roasts, it was the event which secured, in a sense, 
the independence of the United States. (Yorktown Campaign, etc., pp. 
11 to 16— Henry P. Johnston.) "Cornwallis believed that the control 
of Virginia, on account of its central position, would be followed by the 
control of all America." In Virginia Cornwallis found against him 
Lafayette. Washington had sent down a body of Continentals from 
his own army to help Steuben, who had only untrained militia in his 
command. While Lafayette in Virginia, and Greene in North Carolina 
were speculating on the future movements of Cornwallis — for no one 
knew where he meant to go — "the British force suddenly made its ap- 
pearance at Yorktown." Cornwallis had been ordered by Clinton to 
fortify Old Point Comfort as a naval station to protect British shipping. 
Cornwallis moved to Yorktown and began to fortify it as the best avail- 
able station. (Johnston, pp. 19-69.) 

In the meantime, Washington had returned North to make an at- 
tack on the British in New York, which they had occupied since 1776. 

When Washington heard, however, that Cornwallis had moved up 
to Virginia, "he began to consider the possibility of leaving a small force 
to guard the Hudson, while taking the bulk of his army southward to 
overwhelm Cornwallis." He then sent a dispatch to DeGrasse and 
waited until he received a message that the French Admiral was sailing 
from the West Indies to the Chesapeake. During this time Cornwallis 
had been busy fortifying himself in Yorktown. 

"The supreme moment of Washington's military career had come." 
He kept the British blinded, so that at first Clinton did not even know 

74 



that the American army was on the march until alter Rochambeau had 
left Connecticut and Washington had taken the allied armies half way 
across New Jersey. Even then Washington had arranged matters to 
lead Clinton to believe that the Americans were on their way to Staten 
Island to open an attack on New York. What thoroughly convinced 
Clinton was the news he had that the French navy had left the \\ est 
Indies. He thought DeGrasse was on his way to New York Bay to aid 
in the attack on the City. Only Washington knew the truth. However, 
when Washington reached Philadelphia the secret was out. The plan 
could no longer be concealed. As the columns of war-worn Americans, 
followed by the gallant French in their gorgeous trappings, marched 
through the city, Washington received the joyful intelligence that 
DeGrasse had arrived in the Chesapeake. "The glee of the people knew 
no bounds. Bands of music played in the street, and every house hoisted 
its stars-and-stripes." "Long live Washington," was the toast of the 
day. "He has gone to catch Cornwali.is in his mousetrap." (Fiske, 
American Revolution, Riverside Press, 1894, pp. 268-278.) 

Clinton then realized that Washington was moving toward Vir- 
ginia. In the hope of making Washington turn round and face north 
again he sent Benedict Arnold, who was now with the British Army, to 
cross from Long Island to Connecticut and open a campaign in New Eng- 
land, where he plundered and burned New London. With this atrocious 
expedition the name of Benedict Arnold disappears from American 
history. Down in Virginia all things had been working in his favor. The 
English fleet, finding no enemy in the Chesapeake, had sailed out to New- 
York, leaving the way clear for the French to enter. By the time they 
returned, Washington was embarking to cross the Chesapeake into Vir- 
ginia, and the French fleet was blocking the entrance to the bay. The 
toils were fast closing around Cornwallis. On both sides of the finger- 
like peninsula the French navy held him. Where the peninsula joined 
the mainland was the narrow door through which he might have escaped. 
"The boy," Lafayette took his stand at this opening and Lord Corn- 
wallis found himself surrounded. Cornwallis thought of breaking 
through because his army was superior to Lafayette's, but. having not 
the slightest inkling of Washington's movements, he decided to wait for 
the British navy to return. In a week Washington arrived and took 
charge, and the allied armies began the siege of Yorktown. 

The situation of Cornwallis was becoming desperate. A superior 
force surrounded him and his works were crumbling. He resolved to 
escape. With his troops he was ready to cross the York River at night 
when a furious storm came up, as sudden as a tornado, and made any 
attempt to pass the river too dangerous to be attempted. The troops were 
brought back to the fortifications. Lord Cornwallis lost hope. Soon the 
British works were fast crumbling to pieces under the fire of seventy 
cannons. On October 17, 1781, the fourth anniversary of Burgoyne's 
surrender — Cornwallis raised the white flag. Two days later the sur- 
render of Cornwallis and his army took place. The allied troops were 

75 



drawn up in two columns. Washington on his white charger was at the 
head of the Americans; and Rochambeau on a powerful bay horse at 
the head of the French column. Great crowds of people from the sur- 
rounding country were spectators. Cornwallis, feigning sickness, sent 
his aide with his sword. That officer led the vanquished troops out of 
their entrenchments with their colors cased and marched them between the 
victorious columns. He approached Washington but was motioned to 
the American Commander's aide. This officer received Cornwallis's 
sword for Washington and then the Royal army laid down their arms. 
(Lossing — Our Country, p. 1038), while the band played an old English 
melody, "The world turned upside down." 

"The capture of Cornwallis" was the great military surprise of the 
Revolutionary War. Had any one predicted, eight months before, that 
Washington on the Hudson, and Cornwallis on the Catawba, eight 
hundred miles apart, would so soon come together and terminate the war 
on the coast of Virginia, he would have been thought a wild prophet in- 
deed. For thoroughness of elaboration and promptness of execution, the 
movement on Washington's part was as remarkable as the great march 
of Napoleon when he captured the Austrian army at Ulm. (Fiske, Our 
Amer. Rev., p. 280.) 



RECOMMENDATIONS 

In any textbook account of the Battle of Yorktown and the surrender 
of Cornwallis, the following facts should be brought out: 

1. The operations which led to Yorktown. 

2. Washington's strategy in taking advantage of the situation 

which arose. 

3. The attempt by Clinton to turn him from his course and its 

failure. 

4. The siege and surrender. 

5. The importance of the victory. 

6. The help given by the French and our debt of gratitude. 



76 



TREATY OF PEACE— 1783 

The following objections submitted to the Committee are considered 
in the annexed monograph : 

1. To so much of Barnes, Grammar Grades, Sec. 280, as states: 
"Each (meaning France and Spain) wanted her share of the spoils." 

2. To so much of West, as alleges : 

a. In Sec. 289: "The American Commissioners' entered into secret nego- 
tiations with England, and secured terms which Vekgennes could not well refuse 
to approve when the draft of the treaty was placed before him." 

b. In the foot-note in connection with Sec. 289: "Fuanklin had rendered 
incalculable diplomatic service to his country, but his long and intimate rela- 
tions with the French Government had unfitted him for an independent course 
in this crisis." 

The objections are to the effect that : 

1. The statements in West are exaggerated and partisan. 

2. The statement in Barnes is objectionable. 

CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTIONS 

Barnes' statement that "France and Spain each wanted her share of 
the spoils" is objectionable. 

The statements made by West that the Treaty of Peace was "mar- 
velously advantageous" and that Vergennes was guilty of bad faith and 
that because of the secret treaty between the American and the British 
negotiators a better treaty was obtained, are highly debatable. 

As to the secret treaty, Vergennes took it so little to heart, as Hil- 
dreth points out, that within a few days thereafter, he agreed to advance 
a new loan of six million livres toward enabling the United States to 
meet the expenses of the ensuing year. According to eminent authorities, 
"\ i rgennes in his whole course with America seems to have acted an 
honorable part, faithfully contributing, according to his judgment, to se- 
curing the object of the treaty of alliance with the United States." 

There is no justification in a textbook for the derogatory remark con- 

77 



cerning Benjamin Franklin. Because he was not in accord with his 
fellow negotiators on certain aspects of the treaty, does not prove that 
he had become unfitted to act as a negotiator. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

In any textbook account, the following facts should be brought out : 

1. Our great debt of gratitude to France, and particularly to the 

French people. 

2. The terms of the treaty should be set forth plainly and concisely. 



78 



EMPLOY MINT OF INDIANS 

The following objections submitted to the Committee are considered 
in the annexed monograph : 

To so much of Hart as states: 

"Both sides made the moral and military mistake of enlisting Indian allies; 
the Americans were the first to seek this dubious aid; the British used it most 
effectively." 

To so much of West as states : 

"A terrible feature of these raids was the use of Indian allies by the 
English, but it must be remembered that the Americans had first tried to 
secure such allies. Both Washington and John Adams had favored their 
enlistment. Montgomery had some Indians in the army with which he invaded 
Canada, and there were a few in the American army besieging Boston in 1775." 

The specific objections are: 

1. The statement that the Americans first sought to employ, or first 

did employ the Indians is not true. 

2. The real issue is not who first advocated the employment of 

Indians, or who first actually employed them, but how were 
they employed. 

CONSIDERATION OK OBJECTIONS 

The British Were the First to Advocate the Use of Indians 

Bancroft says : 

"As early as 1768, Governor Tryon threatened to use Indians against the 
Regulators." 

In September, 1774, Governor Gage wrote from Boston to Carleton -. 

"I ask your opinion what measures would be most efficacious to raise a 
body of Canadians and Indians and for them to form a junction with the 
King's forces in this province." 

Bancroft says that, in the hope to subdue by terror, "the intention to 
employ Indians was ostentatiously proclaimed, and that simultaneously 
with the application of Gage to the Province of Quebec, the President of 

79 



Columbia College, an Englishman by birth and education, published to the 
world that in case submission to Parliament should be withheld, civil 
war would follow, and the Indians would be let loose upon the back settle- 
ments, and scalp the inhabitants along the border." 

The real issue is not who first threatened to use Indians, or who 
first actually employed them. The real issue is how were they employed. 
Surely, it will not be contended that in the American army, the Indians 
were permitted to commit the cruelties they were encouraged to commit 
in the British army. 

The following speak for themselves : 

In October, 1778, Rockingham, denouncing the "accursed mani- 
festo" of the Conciliation Commissioners, said, "Since the coming of 
Christ, war had not been conducted on such inhuman ideas." 

The Bishop of Peterborough said: 

"There is an article in the extraordinaries of the army for scalping 
knives." 

Bancroft says : 

"Carleton had checked the excesses of the Indians by placing agents of, 
his own selection in charge. His scruples gave offence, and all his merciful 
precautions were swept away. The King's peremptory orders were that the 
Indians were not to be restrained." 

It will serve no useful purpose to dwell upon the horrors of Cherry 
Valley, Wyoming, and other acts of barbarism of the most revolting char- 
acter committed by the Indians under the encouragement of British com- 
manders. No useful purpose can be achieved by spreading the gruesome 
tale upon the pages of a textbook. 

The sole point we desire to make is this : 

The statement that the Americans were the first to employ Indians 
is a controverted one and should not be made in absolute terms in a 
textbook. 



80 



TORIES AND LOYALISTS 



The following objections submitted to the Committee are considered 
in the annexed monograph : 

1. To so much of Hart as describes die origin of Lynch Law. 

2. To so much of Guitteau and of AIcLaughlin and Van Tyne 

as describes the treatment of the Loyalists. 

The objections are to the effect that: 

1. Hart's account of the origin of Lynch Law is incorrect. 

2. Guitteau's account, and McLaughlin and Van Tyne's ac- 

count of the treatment of the Loyalists is prejudiced. 

CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTIONS 

Hart says : 

"In Virginia, a man named Lynch tied up Tories and whipped them until 
they promised to become patriots, and that method came to be called 'Lynch 
Law.' " 

"Lynch Law" has been defined as a summary operation of a mob, or 
of a few private individuals acting independently of the legal authorities. 
"Lynch Law" assumes the existence of an unwillingness to abide by the 
usual forms and penalties prescribed by law, and of a public sentiment 
which tolerates the disregard of such forms and penalties. To charge 
that "Lynch" Law" originated in Virginia in connection with the persecu- 
tion of the Tories is therefore a charge against the love of law and order 
in Virginia. The statement made by Hart has no place in a public 
school textbook, unless he is sustained by the authorities beyond rea- 
sonable doubt. The authorities do not sustain him. 

In Harper's Encyclopedia of United States History, the following 
account is given : 

"'Lynch Law' is said to derive its name from John Lynch, a farmer 
who exercised it upon the fugitive slaves and criminals dwelling in the dismal 
swamp, North Carolina, when they committed outrages upon persons and 
property which the Colonial Law could not properly redress." 

81 



The Encyclopedia of Law and Procedure, Vol. 25, p. 1660, says : 
"The origin of the term 'Lynch Law' is not certain." 

In State v. Aler, 39 W. Va. 549, 558, the Court holds: "The origin 
of 'Lynch Law' is doubtful." 

As West Virginia was at one time part of Virginia, the Courts of 
West Virginia are presumptively thoroughly conversant with the tra- 
ditions of Virginia. 

There is no objection to writing about the persecution of the Loyalists 
by the Patriots, provided the writer also tells of the irritating part 
played by some of the Loyalists, and the cruelties and barbarities of 
which some of them were guilty. While these writers make a very vivid 
plea in behalf of the Loyalists, the statements as to the acts of the Loyal- 
ists are scattered and must be pieced together to get an accurate idea 
of the enormities of which they were guilty, and which embittered the 
Patriots against them. 

Beard and Bagley say : 

"The Loyalists gave aid of money and supplies to the British Commanders 
at every opportunity. While Washington and his heroic band were starving 
at Valley Forge, the Tories were wining and dining with British officers in 
New York and Philadelphia." 

Woodburn and Moran say : 

"The Tories were thought to be sending false reports to the home 
government and urging that more troops should be sent, and a firmer hand 
shown in governing the Colonies." 

Loyalists were acting as spies for the British army. They were in 
league with the Indians in savage raids on our unprotected frontiers. 
They were guilty of the most horrible massacres. They rendered in- 
valuable military assistance to Burgoyne, Howe and Clinton. Cherry 
Valley and Wyoming are instances of the counter charge against the 
Loyalists. 

Bancroft says : 

"Armies were encouraged by the government in England to pillage and lay 
waste the plantations of South Carolina and to confiscate the property of 
the greatest part of her inhabitants — patriots were outlawed and savagely 
assassinated; houses burned and women and children driven shelterless into 
the forests." 

"The destruction of property and life assumed still more hideous forms 
when the peremptory orders and example of Cornwallis were followed by 

82 



subordinates in remote districts away from supervision. Cruel measures seek 
and are sure to find cruel executive agents; officers whose delight was in blood 
patrolled the country, burned houses, ravaged estates and put to death 

whom they would." 

Some Patriots were guilty of tarring and feathering some Loyalists, 
and of putting others to death, but nothing that the Pariots did is com- 
parable with the savagery and barbarism practiced by some of the Loy- 
alists. "Wherever they were in the ascendant. Loyalists were guilty of 
the most inhuman and unrelenting warfare. It would be unnatural to 
expect that the Colonists should not be embittered and aroused to re- 
taliatory measures. P>arbarities and crudities, no matter by whom com- 
mitted, are unpardonable. 

We do not condone the offences of the Patriots, but we must insist 
that if the treatment of the Loyalists is considered by the writer, he must 
not belittle the intolerable situation created by them. 



83 



ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION 

Objection has been made to the Committee to so much of the Re- 
vised History of the United States, by Hart, Section 114, as states: 

"Not until after Burgoyne's army was captured did Congress pluck up 
courage to complete the form of union." 

The objection made is that the statement is derogatory. 



CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTION 

The statement that Congress did not pluck up courage to complete 
the form of union is not the statement of a fact, but of an inference. 



RECOMMENDATION 

It is, ; n our judgment, derogatory, and, not being the statement of 
a fact, but an inference, should be omitted. 



84 



SAMUEL ADAMS 

The following objections submitted to the Committee are considered 
in the annexed monograph : 

1. So much of West as : 

(a) Calls Samuel Adams the first American political boss. 

(b) States that "much of the power lay in his ability to persuade and 
lead the fishermen, ropemakers, and shipmasters of Boston — He displayed a 
capacity for organization, sometimes lapsing into intrigue and a foresight 
sometimes sinking into cunning." 

2. To so much of McLaughlin and Van Tyne, as states : 

a. "His tools were men, and he was intimate with all classes, from the 
rough watermen of Boston to the Ministers. Though gray, with palsied 
hand, and a trembling voice, he was tactful and cool." 

b. "He was feared by his enemies, 'for every dip of his pen stings like a 
horned snake/ said one who suffered." 

3. To so much of Hart, as states : 

a. "The astute political leader, Samuel Adams." 

b. "He pulled the wires which led to the Boston Tea Party." 

c. "Though he could destroy, he did not know how to build up a state." 

The objections are to the effect that the statements are derogatory. 

As Samuel Adams was probably the greatest single factor which 
brought about the Revolutionary Wan, and as it is the opinion of everyone, 
friend and foe, who came into contact with him that he was a man of in- 
corruptible honesty and immovable in his advocacy of what he considered 
just, a textbook writer is under peculiar and special obligations to be very 
careful to avoid making derogatory or inappropriate statements concern- 
ing him. 

The following facts show the character of Samuel Adams: 

In spite of the fact that he had failed in business and was in bad 
financial circumstances when General Gage sent Colonel Fenton to bribe 
him, and to warn him that unless he desisted from his opposition to 
the acts of Parliament, he would be arrested and transported to Eng- 
land for trial on the charge of treason, he refused to abandon his ac- 
tivities. He was warned to make his peace with his king. Thereupon 
he replied : 

85 



"I trust I have made my peace with the King of Kings. No personal 
considerations shall induce me to abandon the righteous cause of my country." 

Adams has been described as a man "stern in morals, a born Republi- 
can and possessed of a courage equal to his convictions." 

Unmoved by threats of transportation, he continued to expose "the 
weakness of England, and to show the strength of America." His 
patriotic utterances, his patience, his wisdom, his sincerity, his incor- 
ruptibility, his organizing skill, helped materially to make the Revolution 
possible. 

In view of the foregoing the Committee is of the unanimous opinion 
that the objections are well taken. 



RECOMMENDATIONS 

In any textbook account of Samuel Adams, the following facts 
should be brought out : 

1. The intense earnestness, sincerity, honesty, and incorruptibility of 

Samuel Adams. 

2. His connection with the organization of the Committees of Cor- 

respondence, and his constant and unwearied efforts in be- 
half of his country. 

3. That he was probably the greatest single factor which brought 

about the Revolutionary War. 



86 



ETHAN ALLEN AND EORT TICONDEROGA 

The following objections submitted to the Committee are considered 
in the annexed monograph : 

To so much of the foot-note, McLaughlin and Van Tyne, Sec. 
253, as states : 

1. "So Allen afterward declared." (This has reference to the state- 
ment in said section 253 that Allen demanded the surrender of the fort in the 
name of the Great Jehovah and the Continental Congress.) 

2. "He had no right to demand the fort in the name of the Continental 
Congress, for his commission was from Connecticut." 



CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTIONS 

The statement in the foot-note, "So Allen afterward declared," is 
calculated to raise a doubt as to whether Allen did in fact make 
demand "In the name of the Great Jehovah and the Continental Con- 
gress." 

Bancroft states, Vol. 7, p. 340: 

"One of the sentries, after wounding an officer, and being slightly wounded 
himself, cried out for quarter, and showed the way to the apartment of the 
commanding officer. 'Come forth, instantly, or I will sacrifice the whole 
garrison,' cried Allen, as he reached the door. At this Delaplace, the Com- 
mander, came out undressed, with his breeches in his hand. 'Deliver to me 
the fort instantly,' said Allen. 'By what authority?' asked Delaplace. 'In 
the name of the Great Jehovah and the Continental Congress,' answered 
Allen." 

Lossing's Field Book of the Revolution, Vol. I, p. 125, has the fol- 
lowing account : 

"Delaplace appeared in shirt and drawers, with the frightened face of his 
pretty wife peering over his shoulder. He and Allen had been old friends and, 
upon recognition, the captain assumed boldness, and threateningly demanded 
his disturber's errand. Allen pointed to his men and sternly exclaimed, 'I 
order you instantly to surrender.' 'By what authority do you demand it,' said 
Delaplace. 'In the name of the Great Jehovah and the Continental Congress,' 
thundered Allen." 

In the foot-note, on page 125, Lossing says: 

"According to Mr. Rice, history has omitted the suffix to this demand, 
which, in those days, was considered a necessary clincher to all solemn aver- 

87 



ments. It is characteristic of the man and the times. Rice's brother was 
within a few feet of Allen and said he exclaimed, 'In the name of the Great 
Jehovah and the Continental Congress, By God!'" 

It thus appears that Allen used the language in the presence of many 
people. Its utterance is specifically confirmed by Mr. Rice's brother. 
Why, therefore, the foot-note, "So Allen afterward declared?" 

The criticism that Allen had no right to demand possession of the 
fort in the name of the Continental Congress is irrelevant. True, the 
Second Continental Congress did not assemble until six hours after Allen 
had captured the fort, and technically, Allen had no right to demand its 
possession in the name of a congress which had not yet come into being. 
But, it must be borne in mind that delegates to the Second Continental 
Congress were then assembling in Philadelphia. Allen might well have 
believed, under the circumstances that he had a right to demand posses- 
sion of the fort in the name of the Continental Congress. As Higginson 
points out, "Congress was only to meet that day, and it appeared already 
to be exercising a sort of ante-natal authority." 

What difference does it make whether Allen should have demanded 
possession of the fort in the name of the Continental Congress, or in the 
name of Connecticut. Under the spell and magic of the demand, the 
pupil is not concerned in splitting hairs over such questions. He is in- 
terested in the courage and bravery which made possible the daring 
stroke. In ten minutes, Allen won a fort "which cost the British eight 
million sterling, a succession of campaigns, and many lives." This was 
done without the loss of life or limb. 

If the story is properly told, the pupils are absorbed in visualizing 
Ethan Allen at 4 a. m. with sword drawn, thundering at Delaplace that 
he surrender the fort "in the name of the Great Jehovah and the Con- 
tinental Congress, By God !" In visualizing this thrilling and inspiring 
picture, the pupil has not the slightest interest in whether Allen should 
have demanded the surrender of the fort in the name of the Continental 
Congress or in the name of Connecticut. 



88 



ARNOLD'S TREASON 

The following objections .submitted to the Committee are considered 
in the annexed monograph: 

1. The facts are so narrated as to leave the impression that 

Arnold's alleged grievances may be urged in mitigation of his 
treason. 

2. No attempt is made to show that nothing can justify treason. 

CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTIONS 

One of the most difficult tasks of a textbook writer is the proper 
treatment of Arnold's treason. Because of limitation due to space and 
the mental powers of pupils, it is impossible adequately to set forth the 
conflicting human elements which constitute the background of the story. 

If Arnold's valiant services at Quebec, Champlain, Ridgefield, and 
Bemis Heights plead for pity, his vindictiveness and fiendishness in Vir- 
ginia and New London call for retributive justice. 

The following story illustrates the conflict between the contending 
emotions : 

"What would the Americans do with me, if they should catch me?" 
Arnold inquired of a young prisoner. He answered, "They would cut 
off and bury with military honors your leg that was wounded at Saratoga, 
and hang the rest of you." 

We believe that the primary aim in telling of Arnold's treason should 
be to arouse an enduring horror of treason. If we are right, the chief 
difficulties in the selection and presentation of material disappear. 

Treason is the most heinous crime one can commit against his coun- 
try. In treason, all are principals. For all participants, the penalty is 
death. Treason knows no mitigating,- — certainly no justifying circum- 
stances. 

The accounts of Arnold's treason, in Barnes, and in McLaughlin 
and Van Tyne, seem to set forth Arnold's claimed mistreatment by Con- 
gress as a fact in mitigation of his treason. 

We are unable to find any corroboration of McLaughlin and Van 

80 



Tyne's high estimate of the consequences which followed the battle of 
Lake Champlain. They say, "This battle prevented Carleton from join- 
ing Howe, and delayed the next year's campaign, and thus saved the 
American cause. Upon this petty conflict the fate of a great nation de- 
pended." 

Of this battle, Mr. Bancroft says: "His fame for courage rose 
higher than before, and at the expense of a fleet which he had recklessly 
sacrificed without public benefit." 

We have been unable to find any authority which agrees with 
McLaughlin and Van Tyne's estimate of the consequences of the 
Battle of Lake Champlain. We called the attention of the War Depart- 
ment to the account given by McL.Xjghlin and Van Tyne and asked the 
Department to state whether there was justification for McLaughlin 
and Van Tyne's evaluation of the consequences of the Battle of Lake 
Champlain. We received the following reply from the Adjutant General: 

"A search of the revolutionary war records in this department, 
deemed likely to afford information relating to the Battle of Lake Champ- 
lain, October 11, 1776, in which Benedict Arnold participated, has re- 
sulted in a failure to discover anything on the subject, although, it is 
possible that a more exhaustive search of those records, not practicable 
at this time, might reveal some information on' the subject. Further, a 
short account of that event is to be found in the printed American 
archives, Fifth Series, Vol. II, page 1028, and several citations of matter 
relating to the subject are to be found in the index to the public papers of 
George Clinton." (See Vol. IX, of the Index under the title, "Arnold, 
Benedict.") 

We have examined the citations referred to in the answer of the 
Adjutant-General, and we find nothing to corroborate the statement of 
McLaughlin and Van Tyne. 

The following extract from the letter of the Adjutant General shows 
the circumstances under which Major General Benedict Arnold was 
tried before a Court Martial at Philadelphia, in February, 1779: 

"The records, show that Major General Benedict Arnold was tried before 
a general court-martial on charges preferred against him at Philadelphia, Feb- 
ruary 3, 1779, and that the result of the trial was announced in an order dated 
April 6, 1780. The charges stated in that order were as follows: 

"1st. That while in the camp of Gen. Washington at Valley Forge last 
spring he gave permission to a vessel belonging to persons then voluntarily 
residing in this city, with the enemy, and of dissaffected character, to come 

90 



into a port of the United States without the knowledge of the authority of 
the States or of the Commander in Chief though then present. 

"2y. In having shut up the shops and stores, on his arrival in the city, 
so as even to prevent ollicers of the Army from purchasing, while he, privately, 
made considerable purchases for his own benefit, as is alleged and believed. 

"3y. In imposing menial offices upon the sons of free men of this State, 
when called forth by the desire of Congress to perforin militia duty, and when 
remonstrated to hereupon justifying himself, in writing upon the ground of 
having power so to do for thai when a citizen assumed the character of a 
soldier — the former was entirely lost in the latter, and that it was the duty 
of the Militia to obey every order of his aids (not a breach of the Laws and 
Constitution) as his (the General's) without judging the propriety of them. 

4y. The appropriating of wagons of this State when called forth upon a 
special emergency, last Autumn, to the transporting of private property and 
that of persons, who voluntarily remained with the enemy last winter, and 
were deemed disaffected to the interest and Independence of America. 

The court found that General Arnold had no right to do the act charged 
under charge 1; acquitted him of charges 2 and 3; found thai the act charged in 
charge 4 was imprudent and improper, and on charges 1 and 4 sentenced him to 
be reprimanded by the commander-in-chief." 

McLaughlin and Van Tyne say: 

"All of his bravery and energy in the American cause had been ignored 
by the American Congress/' 

This statement is unfounded. Conceding that Congress at t : -r.ci 
ignored Arnold, there is no justification for saying that "AH of his 
bravery and energy had been ignored," as appears from the follov.'ing: 

1. In recognition of his gallant services at Ridgefield he was made 

a Major General, and Congress presented him with a horse 
fully caparisoned. 

2. In recognition of his bravery at Bemis Heights, he was re- 

stored to his relative rank. 

3. He was appointed to the military command of Philadelphia on 

account of his wounds. 

The above shows that "All" of Arnold's bravery and energy were 
not ignored. 

Barnes says : 

"Congress had not treated Arnold fairly," The criticism is not within 
the province of a text book writer to make unless on the evidence as a 
whole, reasonable minds could draw no other inference. 

It is a fundamental rule of the law of evidence which prevails in 
this country and in England, that presumptively, public officials act from 
honest motives; that oi'uial acts are based upon satisfactory evidence; 

91 



and that he who attacks the propriety of an official act assumes the 
burden of proof. One of the functions of the public schools is to in- 
culcate respect for constituted authority. No statement should be made 
in a public school, and no book should be used in a public school, which 
contains statements reflecting upon the public authorities, unless, the 
evidence as a whole, on the issue involved, is so satisfactory and con- 
vincing that rational minds would not be justified in drawing opposite 
conclusions. Barnes, and McLaughlin and Van Tyne should have 
limited themselves to saying that Arnold claimed he had been mistreated. 
The evidence in substantiation of Arnold's claim of mistreatment is not 
so clear and convincing as to warrant the writer of a textbook to con- 
demn Congress. 

The undisputed facts are : 

He was very quarrelsome. He was frequently in trouble with his 
fellow officers, for his temper was violent. His official transactions, to 
say the least, were of questionable integrity. He was charged with dis- 
honest financial transactions at Montreal and at Philadelphia. 

The point we desire to make is this: Congress had sufficient evi- 
dence before it to justify the action it took, even though others might on 
the same evidence have taken different action. 



Some of the facts with regard to Arnold's non-promotion are : 

On February 19, 1777, five brigadier generals were promoted over 
Arnold's head. To Washington he wrote of the wound to his "nice 
feelings," and to Gates he wrote, "By heavens. I am a villain if I seek 
not a brave revenge for injured honor." On May 2, 1777, he was made 
a major general, but he was not restored to his relative rank. After the 
battle of Bemis Heights he was restored to his relative rank. Thus 
Arnold was deprived of his rank and relative standing for but a few 
months. 



There is evidence to show that probably as early as 1778 he was al- 
ready in communication with the British. His attempted betrayal of 
West Point occurred in 1780, more than three years after the non- 
promotion had been rectified. Under such circumstances the assertion 
that Arnold's non-promotion turned him into a traitor is debatable. The 
cause seems too remote. 



92 



The statement by Barnes: 

"During the rest of the war he fought on the British side. After the war, 
the unfortunate man spent the rest of his life in loneliness, sorrow, and remorse," 

is an unfair statement of the facts. They are: 

1. He sent a letter to Washington threatening retaliation if 

Andre were executed as a spy. He wrote: 

"I shall think myself bound by every tie of duty and honor to retaliate 
on such unhappy persons of your army as may fall within my power." 

2. He published a Proclamation to the Officers and Soldiers of the 

Continental Army, in which he sought to bribe them to desert. 

3. He was sent on a marauding expedition into Virginia to force 

Virginia to withdraw her troops from the Carolinas. He 
wantonly burned Richmond, and committed other depreda- 
tions. As a marauder, he did his work well. 

■ ! ] 

4. He was sent to burn and pillage in Connecticut, to turn Wash- 

ington from proceeding against Cor xw at. us in Virginia. 
His fiendish work in New London and Fort Griswold can 
never be forgotten. 

5. He showed his ingratitude to Clinton by criticising to the 

ministry his failure to capture the American posts in the 
Highlands. 

6. He settled in New Brunswick after the war. Because of his 

conduct there, he was hung in effigy. 

7. He died in London, "in obscurity, but in comfortable pecuniary 

circumstances." 

We fail to see anything in the above to justify some of the accounts 
of Arnold's post-treason life. He betrayed his country; he betrayed 
Washington ; he was disloyal to Clinton ; he pillaged in Virginia ; he 
butchered in Connecticut ; he was driven out of New Brunswick. 

93 



REC0M MENDATluNS 

1. The aim should be to impress upon the pupil that nothing can 

justify treason. 

2. There should be a vivid portrayal of the consequences of treason 

to the traitor. He forfeits the respect of good men and 
women everywhere. 

3. Attention should be called to the fact that the best British 

officers, and the best men and women in England would have 
nothing to do with Arnold. 

4. Full credit should be given to Arnold for his valuable and 

valiant services before he became a traitor. 

5. If the writer calls attention to Arnold's claim that he was mis- 

treated by Congress he should limit himself to saying, 
"Arnold claimed he had been mistreated" ; and the writer 
should set forth the facts upon which the opposition to Ar- 
nold was based. 

6. Advantage should be taken of the opportunity to call attention 

to the conduct of Washington, Schuyler, Stark, and the 
soldiers who mutinied. They all had grievances, but re- 
mained loyal to their country. 

7. Should the writer call attention to Arnold's post-treason life, 

there must be no attempt to mitigate his post-treason ac- 
tivities : 

a. His threatening letter to Washington to retaliate if Andre 

were executed. 

b. His attempt to induce others to betray their country by is- 

suing a proclamation wherein he sought to bribe them. 

c. His atrocities in Virginia. 

d. His atrocities in Connecticut. 

e. His conduct in New Brunswick. 

While the story should be told with regret that one so brave was 
so weak morally, there must be no lapsing into sentimentality. 

94 



Ill TCHIXSOX— GALLOWAY 



The following objection submitted to the Committee is considered 
in the annexed monograpn : 

To so much of Sec. 94, Hart's School History of the United States, 
as states : 

"Some honest men, like Governor Hutchinson of Massachusetts, thought 
the Colonies ought not to insist on their rights. Others, like Joseph Galloway 
of Pennsylvania, were in favor of protesting, and then accepting whatever 
decision might be made in England." 

The ground of the objection is that neither Hutchinson nor Gal- 
loway were honest men: 

a. Hutchinson w 7 as a hypocrite. 

b. Galloway was a spy. 



CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTIONS 

The Colonists denounced Hutchinson as a hypocrite and Gallo- 
way as a spy. The evidence shows that there was justification for these 
charges. Eminent historians believe the charges are true. Under the 
circumstances, Hart should have refrained from saying "Some honest 
men." 

Hutchinson was born in Boston in 1711. He was graduated from 
Harvard in 1727. He practiced law in Boston, which sent him to London 
as its agent. He held four high offices at one time under the King's ap- 
pointment. He was commissioned Governor in 1771. He was con- 
tinually engaged in controversy with the Assembly. The publication 
of the Hutchinson letters in 1773, showed he had been urging Parlia- 
ment for years to enforce its power strictly over the Colonies. "The 
publication of these letters, aroused a storm of indignation. His re- 
call was demanded." When a committee questioned him as to the au- 
thenticity of the letters, he replied, "They are mine and quite confi- 
dential." He sailed for England in June, 1774. The King rewarded 
him with a pension? He never returned to his native land. He assured 
the King that the Port Bill was a wise and effective method for bringing 
the Boston people into submission. 

95 



Joseph Galloway was born in Maryland about 1730. He was a 
member of the First Continental Congress. In his first debates, his 
arguments were towards political independence. After the question of 
independence began to be seriously agitated, he abandoned the Republi- 
can cause, and became an uncompromising Tory. In 1778, he went 
to England with his daughter and never returned. 

Bancroft says of Galloway : 

"He was so thoroughly Royalist that he acted as a volunteer spy for the 
British Government." 

Lossing says of Galloway: 

"In 1776, he abandoned the Whigs and became the most virulent Loyalist 
of the time. He joined the Royal Army in New York, where he continued to 
reside until 1778, when accompanied by his daughter he went to England. He 
was continually corresponding with Loyalists in America upon subjects con- 
nected with the war." 

Had the writer used some word such as "prominent," instead of 
"honest" the statement would not be objectionable. 



96 



NATHAN HALE MAJOR ANDRE 

The following objections submitted to the Committee are considered 
in the annexed monograph : 

The objections are: 

1. Some books do not mention Nathan Hale. 

2. Some books mention Major Andre only. 

3. Some give colorless and inadequate treatment. 

McLaughlin and Van Tyne 
1. No mention of Hale. Perfunctory reference to Andre. 

Guitteau, Book One 

1. No mention of Hale. 

2. Speaks of Major Andre as follows: "The unfortunate young 

officer was promptly hanged as a spy." 

Morris, Elementary History of the United States 

1. No mention of Hale. 

2. Speaks of Major Andre as follows: "Everyone felt pit) 

Major Andre, who was a fine young man." 

Barnes, Short American History by Grades, Part I 

1. No mention of Hale. 

2. Perfunctory reference to Andre. 

IVoodburn and Moran 
The following account : 

"The Americans offered to exchange Andre for Arnold, whom they wished 
to hang, but the British refused, and the unfortunate Andre, like Nathan 
Hai.e. was hanged as a spy." 

97 



In addition, the writers give a picture of the reading of the death 
warrant of Major Andre, and the following account: 

"Andre was a very admirable character in many ways. Having been cap- 
tured, he was tried by a committee? of fourteen officers, who decided that he 
was a spy, and in accordance with international law, he suffered death. 

"An effort was made by General Clinton to same him. It was said that he 
was acting under a flag of truce. Washinton said that Andre was engaged 
in a business very foreign to, a flag of truce. Andre said that he considered 
himself as acting under protection of such a flag, but submitted to his fate in a 
manly way." 

Hart's School History of the United States 

The following account : 

"Thomas Jefferson was a graduate of William and Mary, James Madison 
of Princeton, Nathan Hale of Yale, and John Adams of Harvard." 

CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTIONS 

Bancroft, in Volume IX, page 130, says: 

"Nathan Hale, a graduate of Yale College, an excellent scholar, but three 
months beyond one and twenty, yet already betrothed, volunteered to venture 
under disguise, within the British lines. Just at the moment of his return, he 
was seized and carried before General Howe in New York. He frankly avowed 
his name and rank in the American army, and his purpose, which his papers 
confirmed; without trial, Howe ordered him to be executed as a spy. That 
night he was exposed to the insolent cruelty of his jailer. The consolation 
of seeing a clergyman was denied him. His request for a bible was refused. 
The more humane British officer, who was deputed to superintend his execu- 
tion, furnished him means to write to his mother and to a comrade in arms. 
On the morning of the twenty-second, as he ascended the gallows, he said: 
'I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.' The Provost 
Marshal destroyed his letter as if grudging his friends a knowledge of the 
firmness with which he had contemplated death. 

"His countrymen never pretended that the beauty of his character should 
have exempted him from the penalty which the laws of war imposed. They 
complained only that the hours of his imprisonment were embittered by bar- 
barous harshness." 

Lossing, in his Pictorial Field Book of the Revolution, Volume II, 
page 609, says: 

"Captain Nathan Hale volunteered for the service — He crossed the Sound 
to Huntington and made his way to the British camp at Brooklyn and vicinity. 
He returned to Huntington with valuable information. There he was recog- 
nized and exposed, tradition says, by a Tory relative, and was taken to Howe's 
headquarters. He was confined in the greenhouse of the garden during the 
night of the twenty-sixth of September, and the next morning, without the 
form of a regular trial, was delivered to Cunningham, the brutal Provost 
Marshal, to be executed as a spy. He was treated with great inhumanity by 
that monster. The sendee of a clergyman, and the use of a bible, were denied 

98 



him, and even the letters which he had been permitted by Howe to write to 
his mother and sisters during the night were destroyed. He was hanged upou 
an apple tree His last words were: i only regret thai 1 have but one 
life to give to my country.' His body was buried beneath the gibbet tree." 

Of Major Andre, Bancroft gives the following account: 

"In the early pari of September, 1780, Major Andre, after having earned 
on a correspondence for two months between Arnold and Clinton, wrote under 
an assumed name and by order of Clinton, to Colonel Sheldon, one of the 
American Commanders, as follows: 

'A flag will be sent to Dobbs Ferry on Monday next, the eleventh, at 12 
o'clock. Lei me entreal you, Sir, to favor a matter which is of so private % 
nature that the party on neither side can be injured by it. I trust I shall not 
be detained, but 1 would rather risk that than neglect the business in question, 
or assume 1 a mysterious character to carry on an innocent affair, and get te 
your lines by stealth' 

"To this degree, the British Commander prostituted his word to a flag of 
truce to lull the suspicions of the American officer by false statements." 

"Andre avowed himself to be an Adjutant General of the British army, 
and offered excuse for having been 'betrayed into the vile condition of an 
enemy in disguise.' He added, 'The request I have to make to your Excellency 
(meaning Washington), and I am conscious I addressed myself well, is, that 
in any rigor policy may dictate, a decency of conduct towards me, that, 
though unfortunate. I am branded with nothing dishonorable, as no motive 
could be mine, but the service of my King, as I was involuntarily an imposter.' 

"His request was treated with the most scrupulous delicacy." 

"Andre, not content with this excuse, wrote to Washington the following 
threatening letter: 

'Gentlemen at Charleston, on parole, were engaged in a conspiracy against 
us. They are objects who may be set in exchange for me, or are persons 
whom the treatment I receive might affect.' 

"The charge of conspiracy against Gadsden, and his fellow-sufferers (the 
men referred to in Andre's letter) was groundless. To seek security by 
a threat of retaliation on innocent men was an unworthy act on the part of 
Andre, which received no support from Sir Henry Clinton." 

"Throughout the inquiry, Andre was shown every mark of indulgence. 
This was conceded by Andre." 

"On September 30, Washington approved the sentence of the Court 
Martial and ordered that Andre be executed the next day." 

"In a note to Washington, Clinton asked Andre's release, as one who 
had been protected by 'A flag of truce and passports granted for his return.'" 

"Andre had himself repelled the excuse which Clinton made for him. 
WASHINGTON leplied 'that Major Andre was employed in the execution of 
measures very foreign to flags of truce, and such as they were never meanl 
to authorize.' " 

"At the request of Clinton, the execution was delayed until October 2. 
Meantime, an effort was made to exchange Andre for Arnold, but it failed." 

"Andre earnestly entreated that he might not die on the gibbet. Wash- 
ington, and every other officer in the American army were moved to the 
deepest compassion, but the English themselves had established the exclusive 
use of the gallows. It was the only mode of execution authorized by them. 
Neither the sentence of the court, tkh- the order of Washington names 'death 
on the gallows'; the execution took place in a manner that was alone in use 
on both side--' 

"Arrived at the fatal spot. Andre preserved his self-control. 'I an; recon- 
ciled to my fate, but not to the mode,' he said. Being asked at the last 

99 



moment if he had anything to say, he answered, 'Nothing, but to request yo i 
to witness to the world that I die like a brave man.' " 

"It we confine our judgment within the limit of the laws of war, it is 
a blemish on the character of Andre that he y/as willing to prostitute a flag 
and pledge his word, even under the orders of his chief, and to have made 
the lives of faultless prisoners hostages for his own. About these things a 
man of honor and humanity ought to have a scruple; but the temptation 
was great. Let his misfortune cast a veil over his errors." 

Major Andre was undoubtedly a brave man, but there is no occa- 
sion for the attempt on the part of some of the writers to create special 
sympathy for him, and particularly when they show no special sympathy 
for Nathan Hale, — do not even mention him.' 

From the foregoing, there is no occasion for Guitteau's statement 
that the "unfortunate young officer was promptly hanged as a spy." He 
was given a fair trial, and at the request of Clinton, the execution was 
postponed. Every opportunity was given Clinton to effect an exchange 
for Arnold. 

Nor is there any occasion in Morris's History for the statement 
"Everyone felt pity for Major Andre, who was a fine young man." 
This writer does not mention Nathan Hale. 

Nor is there any occasion for the very splendid account in Wood- 
burn and Moran, of Major Andre, while as to Nathan Hale, the 
book contains this simple reference: "The unfortunate Andre, like 
Nathan Hale, was hanged as a spy." 

The sole statement in Hart that Hale was a graduate of Yale Col- 
lege falls far short of any educational value. 

We might add, on behalf of those who have omitted Hale from 
their books, that it is argued Hale ought to be taken up in the lower 
grades. The contention is without merit, because Hale is not a char- 
acter who lends himself to consideration separate from the great event 
in which he participated. 

McMurray says, the educative value of heroic stories seems deeper 
in the earlier life of the child than at any other time. Stories of hero- 
ism bring out those marks of prowess and courage which children so 
much admire. Biographical stories should exhibit the lives of men of 
high character and purpose, such as impress the mind with generous 
thoughts. Stories of the Revolution and of ■ the Civil War should come 
in later life, because they illustrate the spirit and temper of those times. 
Therefore, biographical stories should be selected from the field of ex- 

100 



ploration and settlement before society became complex. Only men like 
Columbus, Lincoln, Washington, LaSalle, Boone, Penn, or men 
of the period of exploration, of discovery, or of primitive times can 
be considered by themselves, apart from the times in which they lived. 
They are adventurous spirits ; they stand out and attract individual con- 
sideration. Nathan Hale cannot profitably be considered apart from 
the Revolutionary War. Hale is the concrete embodiment of the spirit 
of the Revolution. In him, the pupil can be made to see the spirit of 
Washington, of Greene, of Putnam ; of the men who fought at Lex- 
ington, Concord, and Bunker Hill. In him, they see the spirit which 
could not be conquered, — which was destined to conquer. 



RECOMMENDATIONS 

1. In all textbooks dealing with the Revolution there should be an 

inspiring account of Nathan Hale. 

2. Should the writer deal with Major Andre, he should not neglect 

the opportunity to contrast Hale and Andre; their respective 
ideals and utterances. 

3. Reasonable credit should be given to Major Andre for his 

bravery. 



101 



HAMILTON 

The following objections submitted to the Committee are considered 
in the annexed monograph : 

1. To so much of Guitteau, page 242, as states: 

"Hamilton distrusted the masses and once exclaimed at a public dinner: 
'Your people, sir, is a great beast.' " 

2. • To so much of Hart's Revised History, Sec. 143, as states : 

"Hamilton was no believer in the wisdom of the people, and is said once 
to have exclaimed: 'Your people, sir, is a great beast.'" 

3. To so much of McLaughlin and Van Tyne, Sec. 388, as 
states : 

"It was common to talk of ways of reducing the debt by paying part and 
refusing to pay the rest, and all that sort of thing, as if there were any honest 
way to be rid of a debt except to pay it." 

The objections are to the effect: 

1. The statements in Guitteau and in Hart are inappropriate. 

2. The statement in McLaughlin and Van Tyne is incomplete 

and misleading in that it gives the impression that Congress 
was in favor of actual repudiation. 

CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTIONS 

We believe that the statements in Guitteau and in Hart, to which 
objection is made, are inappropriate in an elementary school textbook. 

The statement in McLaughlin and Van Tyne that "It was com- 
mon to talk of ways of reducing debt by paying part and refusing to pay 
the rest, and all that sort of thing, as if there were any honest way to 
be rid of a debt except to pay it," is incomplete and does leave the im- 
pression that those in responsible control of the government were seeking 
to evade the payment of its debts. 

It is entirely commendable to express emphatically the obligation of 
the government to pay all its debts, but it is not important to stress 

102 



opposition to such payment on the part of Congress. It becomes ob- 
jectionable if the idea is conveyed that Congress was in favor of actual 
repudiation. 

We do not doubt that Hamilton's plan was, after all, the best. But 
the opposition to the plan included men of unquestioned honesty. Among 
these was Madison. Speaking of his opposition, Lodge says, in his Life 
of Hamilton, "Madison shrank from anything like dishonesty." 

Schouler, in describing the grounds upon which the opponents to 
Hamilton's plan based their opposition, says : 

"But the real strength of their position consisted in the fact, which none 
could gainsay, that by paying in full the nation would not now be rewarding 
generously its original creditors, the men who had supplied sinews of strength 
in the day of trouble, but simply enriching a horde of assignees who had pur- 
chased the certificates at an enormous discount, many of them trading even 
now upon their superior knowledge of the Secretary's plans." 

Lodge in his Life of Alexander Hamilton says: 

"Hamilton and his friends freely admitted the force of this objection, but 
the secretary argued that the great object was to restore the credit and good 
name of the United States, to do what was just in the majority of instances 
and to the greatest number, and he urged, in conclusion, that any other 
course was impracticable." 

From the foregoing it is evident that the writer who undertakes to 
discuss the opposition to Hamilton's plan must be very careful so to 
word his account as not to question the honesty and sincerity of its 
opponents. 



103 



PATRICK HENRY 

The following objections submitted to the Committee are considered 
in the annexed monograph : 

1. To so much of McLaughlin and Van Tyne, as states: 

a. He was a gay, unprosperous and hitherto unknown country lawyer. 

b. To avoid trouble with the King, the case was decided in favor of the 
Parson, but the jury gave him only one penny damages. 

2. To the entire account in Barnes' Grammar School History: 
The objections are to the following effect: 

1. The statements in McLaughlin and Van Tyne are derogatory. 

2. The account in Barnes' Grammar School History is inadequate. 

CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTIONS 

The word "gay" particularly as it is used with the word "unprosper- 
ous" has an undesirable meaning. It suggests indulgence, looseness, and 
licentiousness. We suggest the use of a word less open to misconstruc- 
tion. 

The statement that the jury "to avoid trouble with the King decided 
in favor of the Parson, but gave him only one penny damages" is ob- 
jectionable. Under our system of jurisprudence, it is the sole function of 
the jury to assess the damages. The presumption is that when the jury 
awarded one penny damages it acted from honest motives and not 
"to avoid trouble with the King." Moreover, after the return of the 
verdict a motion was made for a new trial but it was denied. 

There is a wealth of material of high educational value at the dis- 
posal of the textbook writer as appears from the following account sub- 
mitted by a member of this Committee. As the textbook writer can 
use but a small part of this material, it is manifest that there is no oc- 
casion for his using any material which is not inspiring. 

Patrick Henry 

Patrick Henry, a young lawyer, came into public notice when he 
dared to go into court to argue against a decision made by the King. 

104 



Patrick Henry won a verdict from a jury on the grounds that the 
Virginia Charter gave the House of Burgesses "the authority to make 
laws, subject only to the governor's veto." (History of the U. S., E. 
Benjamin Andrews, V. I, p. 127.) The audience became so excited 
by Henry's speech that they carried him out of the Court House. 
Over night, Patrick Henry had become one of the famous men of 
Virginia. (International Ency. 1898.) Two years later, in 1765, the 
Stamp Act year, Henry was sent to the House of Burgesses. As a young 
man, newly elected, he was expected to listen to the addresses of the 
older members, Washington, Lee and Randolph, who were the 
wealthiest and most important men in Virginia. Young Henry, how- 
ever, boldly ventured to speak on the subject of the Stamp Act. He 
electrified the dignified assembly by asking it to vote on a set of resolu- 
tions (Lossing's Field Book, Amer. Rev.), which he had hastily scribbled 
on the fly-leaf of a book, to the effect that the House of Burgesses and 
the governor only could tax the colonies. Henry shocked even the 
patriots in the House by boldly declaring, "Caesar had his Brutus, 
Charles the First his Cromwell, and George the Third" he was inter- 
rupted by cries of "Treason, Treason" "may profit by their example," he 
finished, adding calmly "if this be treason, make the most of it." 
(Lossing. ) 

Henry's resolutions stirred the people to such an extent that tax 
laws passed in England could no longer be enforced in Virginia. (In- 
ternational Ency. 1898.) Patrick Henry's resolutions had started the 
Revolution in the King's own colony. 

After the repeal of the Stamp Act, when other duties were laid 
upon the colonies, Patrick Henry became the leader of the people in 
their opposition to these new attempts to invade their rights. (Lossing, 
p. 483.) He joined Jefferson, Adams and others in their purpose to 
bring about a break with England. (History Amer. People, Woodrow 
Wilson, Vol. II, pp. 193, 194, 210.) Virginia sent him to the First Con- 
tinental Congress in 1774. Here he made the great speech in which he 
said, "I am not a "Virginian, I am an American." The next year, the 
period of the Battles of Lexington and Concord. Virginia raised a militia 
in response to Henry's burning speech: "Our chains are already forged, 
their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston. T know not what 
course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death." 

Henry did not feel that winning the Revolution ended for Ameri- 
cans the task of fighting for liberty. He was wise enough to see that 
American Liberty would always need safeguarding. He knew that 
the future safety of American Liberty would, depend upon the ambition 
of the American people to rise as high as the men who had won inde- 
pendence for them in the days of the thirteen colonies. 

After his death there was found among his papers one sealed. It 
contained the story of his first resolutions in the House of Burgesses. 
The ending of that paper is Patrick Henry's last message to us. 

105 



"Whether this (independence) will prove a blessing or a curse, will de- 
pend upon the use our people make of the blessings which a gracious 
God has bestowed on us. If they are wise, they will be great and 
happy. If they are of a contrary character they will be miserable. 
Righteousness alone can exalt them as a nation. Reader, whoever thou 
art, remember this, and in thy sphere practice virtue and encourage it in 
others." 



RECOMMENDATIONS 

In any textbook account of Patrick Henry the following should 
be brought out : 

1. His intense earnestness, and his deep and sincere belief in the 

righteousness of the cause of the colonies. 

2. His great eloquence (excerpts should be given). 

3. His clear vision as to the inevitability of the conflict. 



lOo 



ANDREW JACKSON 

The following objections submitted to the Committee are considered 
in the annexed monograph : 

1. To so much of McLaughlin and Van Tyne as states: 

a. That Jackson was rough and uncultured. 

b. "Jackson disliked the bank because its stockholders and managers 
were his political enemies." 

c. That Jackson put the public moneys into pet banks. 

d. "Jackson's reign was over." 

2. To so much of Guitteau as states: 

a. That Jackson could not spell correctly or write good English. 

b. That the crowd in their eagernes to see the President, "upset the 
pails of orange punch, broke the glasses, and stood with muddy boots on the 
satin covered chairs — but prudent persons carried tubs and buckets filled with 
punch out on the lawn, the windows were thrown open, and the mob made 
a quick exit. Worse than the scramble for refreshments was the scramble for 
office." 

Objection is also made to the whole tenor of the account given by 
McLaughlin and Van Tyne, and by Guitteau, in that they deal with 
details of a factional character of little educational value. 



consideration of objections 

It will serve no useful purpose to discuss in detail the specific ob- 
jections hereinbefore set forth. We are of the opinion that the state- 
ments that "J ACKS0N was rough and uncultured," "J ACKS0N disliked the 
bank because its stockholders and managers were his political enemies," 
"Jackson put the money into pet banks," "Jackson's reign was over," 
"Jackson could not spell correctly, or write good English," "The crowds 
in their eagerness to see the President, upset pails of orange punch, broke 
the glasses, and stood with muddy boots on the satin-covered chairs, etc.," 
are inappropriate. 

The objection that some of the textbooks are partisan in their treat- 
ment of many of the issues which arose in Jackson's administration is 
well taken. 

It serves no useful purpose to give an extended discussion of some 
of the partisan issues in Jackson's administration. Partisanship ran 
high. Bitter things were said by the leaders of the various factions. But 
on the whole these leaders were sincere. Surely no one can question 

107 



the honesty and sincerity of Jackson. Therefore, such statements as 
the following: "Jackson was an opponent of the bank because Henry 
Clay was its friend," or, "He was an opponent of the bank because 
Jackson's enemies were interested in the bank," are derogatory and in- 
appropriate. 

The Jacksonian period is one of bitter partisanship. Jackson has 
been described as the first genuine representative of democracy. He 
differed radically in many respects from the leaders of the old school. 
His notions of transacting business, his aims, his ideals, and his purposes 
were not hampered by tradition ; at least in any marked degree. 

Therefore, in dealing with the Jacksonian period, the writer of the 
textbook must constantly bear in mind the peculiar situation which then 
existed. He must be particularly careful to avoid the expression of 
biased or prejudiced opinions. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

In any textbook account of Jackson and the Jacksonian period, the 
following should be brought out : 

1. Jackson's intense earnestness and his honesty. 

2. The strong characteristics which have made him one of the out- 

standing figures in American history. 



108 



JOHN PAUL JOMii 



The following objections submitted to the Committee are considered 
in the annexed monograph : 

To so much of Barnes, Part II, as states: 

"The Serapis had the better of the fight and would have won had not 
a sailor on the Richard happened to throw a hand-grenade down a hatchway 
ol" the Serapis, where, in exploding, it fired a large lot of powder which blew 
up the ship and killed many of her men." 

To so much of Barnes, Grammar Grades and Part I, as states: 

"An accidental explosion of powder on board the Serapis killed many of 
her men and her captain surrendered." 

To so much of McLaughlin and Van Tyne, as states : 

"With crew made up of men from a dozen nations, many of them rascals, 
who feared nobody but the daring Paul Jones." 

The objections are to the effect that the accounts belittle the victory 
and the character of Jones's men. 



consideration of objections 

The statements by Barnes that a sailor "happened" to throw a hand- 
grenade, and that the explosion was "accidental" are in derogation of the 
victory. They spoil an otherwise excellent account. According to the 
best authorities the grenade was thrown by a sailor who had stationed 
himself, either in the round-top or on the mast of the Richard. 

In his Field Book of the Revolution, Vol II, p. 642, Lossing says : 

"The marines in the round-top sent volleys of bullets with deadly aim 
down upon the struggling Englishmen. Ignited combustibles were scattered 
over the Serapis. At half past nine, as the moon rose in the cloudless sky, 
some cartridges were ignited, and all the officers and men on the Serapis abaft 
the mainmast were blown up." 

Fiske, Vol. II, p. 127, says: 

"One bold fellow crawling out to the end of the Bon Homme Richard's 
mainyard just over the main hatchway of the Serapis dropped one of these 
mischievous missiles through the hatchway where it ignited a row of cartridges 
that were lying upon the main deck. The explosion ran swiftly along the line 
as through a park of gipanfic fire crackers." 

109 



The statement in McLaughlin and Van Tyne that "Jones's crew 
was made up of men from a dozen different nations, many of them 
rascals" is objectionable. The crew of 375 men was a "medley of repre- 
sentatives of almost every nation of Europe, and even of Malays." Why 
call them rascals? What is the educational value, or the purpose of such 
a derogatory statement? When we consider what a glorious victory 
Jones won under the most adverse circumstances, we are of the opinion 
that the statement, even if true, is inappropriate. Children are interested 
primarily in the heroism of Jones and the glory of the victory. 

Instead of writing about the rascality of the crew the authors might, 
more appropriately, have narrated the following anecdote: 

It is related that when Captain Pearson delivered his sword to 
Jones, he remarked, "I cannot, Sir, but feel much mortification at the 
idea of surrendering my sword to a man who has fought me with a 
rope around his neck." Jones received the sword, but immediately re- 
turning it said, "You have fought gallantly, Sir, and I hope your King 
will give you a better ship." Pearson was afterward knighted. On 
hearing of it, Jones remarked, "He deserves it, and if I fall in with him 
again, I will make a Lord of him." 

recommendations 

In any textbook account of Jones's victory the following should be 
brought out: 

1. The courage of Jones and his men. 

2. The adverse circumstances under which Jones fought. 

3. The extraordinary leadership of Jones. 

4. The importance of the victory. 



110 



THE ATTACK UPON JOHN MARSHALL AND THOMAS 

JEFFERSON 



Objection has been made to Section 151 of Hart's "Revised 
History," in that the section is very offensive and derogatory. The par- 
ticular portions objected to are the following: 

J. "John Marshall, a leading Federalist in Virginia, had just become 
Chief Justice, and set out to teach Jefferson a lesson. Taking advantage of 
a dispute over a small appointment, Marshall held that a certain order given 
by the President was not legal." 

2. "Jefferson paid no attention to this decision, which seemed a kind 
of political trick." 



CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTIONS 

Without discussing the historical accuracy of these statements, it is 
the unanimous opinion of the Committee that they are inappropriate for 
textbook use. A statement which reflects upon the honesty or sincerity 
of an official act particularly of the President of the United States, or 
of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, is so 
serious, that it should not be made, unless of unquestionable historical 
accuracy and of high educational value. 



Ill 



MONROE 

Objection has been made to the Committee to so much of the ac- 
count in McLaughlin and Van Tyne as states : 

"Monroe was only a gallant officer of the lower rank of the Revolution, 
a fairly good diplomat who happened to have a hand in the Louisiana Purchase, 
and only an ordinary Secretary of State under Madison, but he was the choice 
of the Republican Party leaders, Madison and Jefferson." 

The specific objections are: 

1. It is derogatory. 

2. It is unfair. 



consideration of objections 

By reason of the Monroe Doctrine, Monroe's name is known in 
all civilized countries ; therefore, the writer of a textbook should be par- 
ticularly careful to say nothing in derogation of his qualities as a stales- 
man and a man unless it is absolutely necessary. To say that a man 
is only a gallant officer, or a fairly good diplomat, or an ordinary Secre- 
tary of State, is "to damn with faint praise." 

Monroe joined the patriot army as a cadet in Mercer's regiment ; he 
participated in the battles of Harlem Heights, White Plains and Trenton. 
He was wounded at the battle of Trenton and was promoted to a 
captaincy for his bravery ; he was aide to Lord Sterling and distin- 
guished himself at the Battles of Brandywine, Germantown and Mon- 
mouth ; he fought in Virginia against Cornwallis. 

In 1782 he was a member of the Virginia Assembly; he soon be- 
came a member of the Executive Council and a delegate in Congress. 
From 1790 to 1794 he was a United States Senator. In May of that 
year Washington appointed him Minister to France, but he was re- 
called in 1796 because of his opposition to Jay's Treaty. From 1799 to 
1802 he was Governor of Virginia. In 1802 he was sent as Envoy to 
France; in 1803 he was United States Minister to the Court of St. 
James. In 1805 he was associated with Charles C. Pinckney in a 
negotiation with Spain. With William Pinckney he negotiated a 
treaty with England in 1807, which Jefferson rejected because it did 
not provide against impressments. He was again elected Governor of 

112 



Virginia in 1811. He was Madison's Secretary of State during a large 
part of his administration; from September, 1814, to March, 1815, he 
performed the duties of Secretary of War. He was elected President of 
the United States in 1816. So faithfully did President Monroe adhere 
to the promises of his inaugural address that he was re-elected with but 
one dissenting vote in the Electoral College. This vote was cast against 
Monroe, not because of opposition to him, but because the voter had de- 
clared that no person should ever receive the high compliment paid to 
George Washington by a unanimous election. 

Wounded on the battlefield at the age of 18; promoted to a cap- 
taincy because of bravery; twice Governor of Virginia; Minister to 
England, France, and Spain; Secretary of War; and Secretary of State; 
these are some of the things which McLaughlin and Van.Tyne might 
have written of the author of the Monroe Doctrine. 



113 



WILLIAM PITT— EARL OF CHATHAM 



Objection was made to the Committee to calling the Earl of Chatham 
a friend of the colonists on the ground that: (a) He opposed giving them 
independence, and (b) he accepted the title, "Earl of Chatham" as the 
price of his opposition to the cause of the Colonists. 



CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTIONS 

That Pitt erred in accepting a title is generally conceded. Fred- 
erick of Prussia said, "He harmed himself by accepting a peerage." 
The King of Poland said, "It argues a senselessness to glory to forfeit 
the name of Pitt for any title." With his acceptance of a peerage, says 
Bancroft, "The lion had left the forest, where he roamed as the un- 
disputed monarch, and of himself had walked into a cage. He was but an 
English earl, and the shadow of a prime minister. He no longer repre- 
sented the enthusiastic nationality of the British people." 

However great his mistake in accepting the peerage, we find no evi- 
dence that Pitt accepted the title as the price of abandoning the cause of 
the colonies. 

At no time, either as William Pitt, or as the Earl of Chatham, did 
he advocate independence for the colonies. He advocated the fullest 
measure of freedom within the British empire. He always maintained 
that the tax bills were unjust, but he contended that Parliament had a 
right to legislate for the colonies. 

As Earl of Chatham, he showed his friendship for the colonies, as 
appears from the fact that he: 

1. Asked for the repeal of the revenue laws. 

2. Protested against the employment of Indians against the 

colonies. 

3. Justified the acts of the Continental Congress. 

4. Proposed the removal of the army from Boston. 

5. Urged the repeal of the Oppressive acts. 

114 



6. Introduced a bill for conciliation. 

7. Eulogized Franklin. 

8. Severely attacked the ministry. 

9. Disapproved of the war tax. 

10. Maintained that America could not be conquered. 

11. Protested against the use of German mercenaries. 

Against this magnificent record of service and of friendship, there 
is but one objection. He opposed the independence of the colonies. 
His opposition was the result of a sincere belief that the dismember- 
ment of the British Empire would be a grave calamity. 



115 



COLONEL TARLETON 

Objection has been submitted to the Committee relative to the in- 
clusion by West (Sees. 284-285) of a picture of Colonel Tarleton, 
and of the following description of the picture: "The commander of 
Tarleton's Legion, the most famous of all the Loyalist Regiments — A 
painting by Reynolds." 

The objection is to the effect that: 

1. Neither the picture nor the descriptive account has any substan- 

tial connection with the context. 

2. The description gives the impression that Tarleton and his 

men were honorable and courageous. They were not. They 
were merciless and treacherous. 

CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTION 

The authorities are practically unanimous in charging that Carle- 
ton was cruel, merciless, and treacherous. He is frequently called the 
"Butcher." 

Lossing says: 

"While the flags for a conference (with Buford) were passing, Tarleton, 
contrary to military rules, was preparing for an assault, and the instant he 
received Buford's reply, his cavalry furiously charged the Americans. Having 
received no orders to defend themselves, and supposing the negotiations were 
yet pending, the Continentals were utterly dismayed by this charge. All was 
confusion, and while some fired upon their assailants, others threw down their 
arms and begged for quarter. None was given. Men without arms were hewn 
in pieces by Tarleton's cavalry. It was nothing less than a cold-blooded 
massacre. Tartleton's quarter became proverbial as a synonym to cruelty. 
The Liberal press and all right-minded men in England cried 'Shame!'" 

Steadman, the British historian of the war, says : 

"On this occasion, the virtue of humanity was totally forgotten." 

Tarleton's regiment was infamous — not famous. The picture and 
description of Tarleton add nothing to the context, and are inappro- 
priate. 

It has been suggested that since the writer gives the pictures of 
but three Americans since the Civil War : Samuel Gompers, Woodrow 
Wilson, and William Jennings Bryan — that he eliminate the picture 
of Tarleton and the description, and utilize the space later for a pic- 
ture of Theodore Roosevelt with the title: "Commander of the Famous 
Rough Riders." 

116 



RELIGION 

The following objections submitted to the Committee are considered 
in the annexed monograph: 

To so much of Guitteau, p. 138, as states: 

"One small boy in Connecticut had to appear before the Justice of the 
Peace for the following misconduct: 'A rude and idel Behaver in the meeting 
hous Such as Smiling and Larfing and Intissing others to the Same Evil. 
Such as Larfing or Smiling or puling the hair of his naybei • Benom Simkns 
in the time of Publik Worship. Such as throwing Sister Penticost Perkins 
on the Ice, it being Saboth day, between the .meeting hous and his pla.es ot 
abode ' The New York boys did not behave much better. On Long Island 
Godless youth 'ran raesses' on the Sabbath, and talked of 'vane things ; and 
finally a cage was set up in City Hall Park in which boys were confined who 
did not properly observe the Sabbath." 

To so much of McLaughlin and Van Tyne, Sec. 215, as states: 

"Virginia also had the misfortune, because she favored the Anglican 
church to have her clergy sent to her from England and for a time there came 
a race 'Such as wore Black Coats, and could babble in the pulpit, f roar in a 
tavern— and rather by dissoluteness destroy than feed their nocks. 

To the foot-note in connection with said Sec. 215, in so far as it 
states : 

"Some doubted whether women ought to sing in church, thinking that 
only Godly men-not 'carnal men and pagans'-should join in public singing. 

The objections are to the effect: 
That these accounts are offensive. 



CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTIONS 

The statement that "there came a race such as wore black coats 
and could babble in the pulpit, roar in a tavern, and rather by their 
dissoluteness destroy than feed their flocks," is offensive. 

The statement that "Some doubted whether women ought to sing 
in church, thinking that only Godly men, not carnal men and pagans 
should join in public singing," is of doubtful propriety. 

117 



The statement as to the treatment of the small boys in Connecticut 
and in City Hall Park is of doubtful propriety, and has not sufficient 
educational value to justify its use. 

In a public school textbook, there must be no criticism of the re- 
ligious beliefs or practices of any sect. The most scrupulous care must 
be observed to make no statement which directly or indirectly reflects 
upon the beliefs or practices of any of the pupils, their parents, or their 
ancestors. The main purpose of the writer should be to show the 
growth of the spirit of toleration. The pupil should be taught to love 
tolerance. 



1J8 



THE ACQUISITION OF THE SITE EUR THE CITY OF 
\\ ASHINGTON AND THE ASSUMPTION BILL 



Objection has been made to the Committee to the following state- 
ments in West's account of the location of the capital on the Potomac 
and to Hamilton's financial policy regarding assumption. 

1. To so much of Section 375, as states: 

"Hamilton's plan is to be praised because it was wise, not because it was 
particularly honest." 

2. To so much of Section 376 

as states that the Assumption measure was finally carried by a ''log-rolling 
bargain." Jefferson was persuaded to get two Virginia votes for Assumption 
in return tor Hamilton's promise of northern votes to locate the capital on the 
Potomac. 

3. To the foot note which says : 

"It is not clear why this arrangement between Hamilton and Jefferson 
cannot be called a compromise, but must be styled log-rolling.'' 

4. To so much of Section 377, as states : 

"All such creditors were transformed into anient advocates of the new gov- 
ernment and of every extension of its powers." 



CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTIONS 

No extended argument is necessary to show that each and every 
one of these statements is derogatory in its character and highly out 
of place. 

It is manifestly an exaggeration to say "all such creditors were 
transformed into ardent advocates of the new government, and of every 
extension of its powers." 

The charge that the Assumption Bill was finally carried by a "log- 
rolling" bargain between Hamilton and Jefferson is derogatory, and 
reprehensibly so because the writer, in addition to making the charge 
in the body of the text resorts to a foot-note to emphasize it. 

110 



Schouler's History of the United States give the following ac- 
count : 

"Congress had been agitating the question of a permanent 
capital. New York was not averse to such a distinction, but New York City 
was an expensive place of residence. Pennsylvania was a more promising 
competitor, but Congress adjourned without disposing of the matter, though 
at one time it looked as if Germantown would be selected as the permanent 
site of the Federal capital. The capital issue, like that of assumption, 
touched particular states deeply, so as to make the two schemes counter- 
measures. This brought legislation to a standstill. To locate the federal resi- 
dence on the Potomac, Virginia and Maryland were very earnest. Madison 
had worked hard to gain that end, nor, as it appears, was Washington 
himself wholly without a feeling of local pride in the matter. Out of this 
double entanglement came a double adjustment on the basis of mutual sur- 
render. Hamilton was deeply interested in the enactment of the assumption 
bill. He believed it to be a necessary, just and honorable measure. He ap- 
pealed to Jefferson for help. Jefferson saw nothing objectionable in as- 
sumption, and undertook with good humor the office of pacificator. He made 
a dinner party for Hamilton and one or two influential friends, at which 
the situation was discussed at length. It was arranged at this dinner that 
White and Lee of Virginia should change their votes on assumption, while 
Hamilton, with the aid of Robert Morris, should secure the Potomac for a 
permanent capital of the Union. The arrangement was carried out and the 
two bills were duly enacted into law." 

Lodge, in his Life of Alexander Hamilton, says: 

"Hamilton was determined to secure the enactment of the assumption 
bill. All the forces he had calculated upon had responded and done their work, 
but a new factor had been introduced, and they could do no more. He would 
not yield one jot of his financial policy, but he was perfectly ready to give up 
something else. The matter of the seat of government had excited great con- 
troversy and feeling between states and sections. Local prejudice and local 
pride were aroused to white heat on this momentous issue. To Hamilton 
all this was supremely indifferent. Much of his strength, and somewhat of 
his weakness, as a public man, came from the fact that, while he was in- 
tensely national in opinion, and was devotedly attached to the United States, 
he was utterly devoid of local feeling and of state pride. He cared not 
one whit, except as a matter of mere abstract convenience, where Congress 
fixed the site of the federal city; but he was keenly alive to the fact that 
everybody about him cared a great deal, and whether reasonably or not was 
of no consequence. Those who favored assumption were as a rule on the 
side of a northern capital, those who opposed assumption were as a rule in 
favor of a southern capital. To gain the necessary votes for assumption, 
Hamilton determined to sacrifice what he justly thought was a trivial question, 
and thus save the financial policy which he rightly construed to be of vital 
importance and the cornerstone of the new government." 

"Log-rolling" is an opprobrious term. In the public mind it is 
associated with combinations between politicians for the purpose of se- 
curing legislation of questionable character. 

Neither Jefferson nor Hamilton had any personal interest in the 
Assumption Bill or the Capital Bill. Jefferson honestly and sincerely 
believed that the federal city should be located on the Potomac. 

120 



Schouler says that Washington, while a young surveyor surveying 
the neighboring country, had marked the advantages of this spot for a 
great city. He dreamed of giving it a name the night he encamped 
with a part of Braodock's forces on the hill where now stands the Na- 
tional Observatory. 

Hamilton was just as sincere in his belief that the interests of the 
country demanded the enactment of the assumption law, but he cared 
not one whit as to the location of the national capital. 

Under such circumstances there is nothing to criticize in the 
arrangement between Jefferson and Hamilton. 

Jefferson and Hamilton were not guilty of log-rolling. 



121 



JOHN JAY TREATY 

The following objections submitted to the Committee are considered 
in the annexed monograph: 

To Sections 401, 405, 406 in West in so far as they state: 

1. The British deserters were often protected by fraudulent papers of 
citizenship easily secured in American ports. 

2. Worse still, in irritation at the American encouragement to their 
deserters English officers sometimes impressed born Americans, either by 
mistake, or by set purpose. 

3. America secured undisputed possession of her full territory and satisfac- 
tion for commercial injuries. 

4. This rational agreement (meaning the Jay Treaty) called forth violent 
outcry. In England, the ministry were assailed for basely sacrificing British 
honor, and on this side there was much senseless clamor about not surrendering 
American soil without fighting to the last drop of our blood. 

5. When the English forces evacuated American seaports they carried 
away a few hundred negroes .... The American State Governments 
made this a pretext for deliberately breaking one of the most reasonable articles 
of the war, that regarding British debts .... Meantime the Americans 
had not at first been ready to take over the posts on the Great Lakes, and 
when they desired to do so, England refused to surrender them because of this 
infraction of the treaty. 

To so much of Barnes, Part II, Sec. 85, as states : 

"The course of England made the followers of Jefferson still more eager 
for a war on behalf of France." 

To so much of McLaughlin and Van Tyne, Sec. 401, as states : 

"Because Washington strove not to be dragged into the European war, 
men whose brains were turned by much of the French nonsense, accused him 
of favoring our old enemy England." 

The objections are to the effect: 

1. The account in West is biased and prejudiced. 

2. The attacks upon the friends of France are inappropriate. 



consideration of objections 

The statement that "The course of England made the followers of 
Jefferson still more eager for a war in behalf of France," and the 

122 



statement that "Because Washington strove not to be dragged into the 
European war, men whose brains were turned by much of the French 
nonsense accused him of favoring our old enemy England," are contro- 
versial and of doubtful propriety, and should be omitted. 

West's account is an indefensibly weak arraignment of the British 
invasion of American rights. West's entire account is inappropriate. 

Trouble began with England shortly after signing the Treaty of 
Peace in 1783. We were not in a position to compel the British to 
carry out the terms of the treaty. The real trouble was that the Eng- 
lish were under the impression that the colonists w'ould not be able to 
form a union; that quarrels amongst themselves would shortly drive 
them back into the British Empire, hence the British were in no hurry 
to give up the forts. 

Lord Sheffield, in a formidable pamphlet, declared his belief that 
ruin would soon overtake the Confederation because of the anarchy 
and confusion in which the states were involved, by reason of their in- 
dependence. He advised his countrymen to consider the states of little 
account as a nation. He considered the members of the Confederation 
as dislocated members of the British Empire. 

Washington tried again and again to secure an adjustment of 
the difficulty with Great Britain, but could get no specific answer to 
specific questions submitted to the British Ministry relative to the 
carrying out of the terms of the treaty. 

Schouler, Vol. I, page 308, states : 

"No rational interpretation of the Jay Treaty can leave a doubt in candid 
minds thai the United States Government, having plain grievances against 
King George, and plain opportunities for annoyance, yielded all the favors in 
her power to bestow, for the sake of getting these grievances redressed for the 
first time, and redressed only just far enough to obviate th ty of im- 

mediate war. Jay, a representative, was so painfully conscious that a dangerous 
contest of arms would follow his failure to make terms with the aggressor that 
he most likely encouraged the least scrupulous statesmen "who traded with him, 
and turned the opportunity to England's besl account by obtaining all (he 
commercial advantages for the European struggle she wished from us, without 
undergoing the humiliation of asking for them, thus paring the claws of a 
neutral, who had angrily threatened to use them, while pretending that the 
British Lion was submitting to thai operation. It is probable Jay could not 
have gained more for his country, but it is certain ho mighl have surrendered 
less, and so gol an equally specific exit to his mission." 

With reference to the impressment of American sailors which 

123 



West describes as having been made "in irritation," we cite the follow- 
ing from Lossing's Pictorial Field Book of the War of 1812 : 

"In her efforts to maintain her position of mistress of the seas, Great 
Britain found herself under the necessity of announcing another law of nations 
to suit her particular case. High wages, humane treatment, and security 
from danger, to be found in the American merchant service, had attracted 
a great many British seamen to it. Their government, alarmed at the 
threatened weakening of its naval power by this drain, planted itself upon the 
theory that a subject cannot expatriate himself — 'Once an Englishman always 
an Englishman' — That in time of war the government had a right to the service 
of every subject. British commanders! of war vessels were authorized to make 
up any deficiency in their crews by pressing into their service British born sea- 
men wherever found, not within the immediate jurisdiction of any foreign state. 

"Under this authority, many American merchant vessels were crippled 
while in mid-ocean by British seamen being taken from them. It was some- 
times difficult to discover the nationality of the seamen in question. In 
addition, born Americans were frequently dragged on board British war vessels 
and kept in servitude in the Royal Navy for years. This was a great and 
irritating grievance." 

Late in 1800, John Marshall, Secretary of State, wrote a letter to 
Mr. King in London, wherein he says: 

"The impressment of our seamen is an injury of, very serious magnitude, 
which deeply affects the feelings and the honor of the nation. They are dragged 
on board British ships of war with evidence of citizenship in their hands and 
forced by violence to serve until conclusive testimonials of their birth could 
be obtained .... It is the duty, as well as the right, of a friendly nation 
to require that measures be taken by the British Government to prevent the 
continued repetition of such violence by its agents .... The mere release 
of the injured, after a long course of serving and suffering is no compensation 
for the past, and no security for the future." 

Danes, Swedes, Norwegians, Dutch, Spanish, were taken from 
American ships on the ground that they were British citizens, though 
it must have been apparent from the barest inspection that they were 
not British. 

The statement of Lord Collingwood, "England would not submit 
to such an aggression for an hour," shows the indefensibility of Eng- 
land's course. 



recommendations 

In any account of the John Jay Treaty, the following facts should 
be brought out : 

1. At the close of the American Revolution, many British states- 

124 



men believed that the colonies would shortly seek to re-enter 
the British Empire. 

2. That these British statesmen discouraged the taking of steps 

to carry out the terms of the Treaty of Peace. 

3. That because of the low wages paid in the British Naval ser- 

vice, and because of the inhuman treatment of the sailors by 
the British many of them deserted and entered the American 
service. 

4. In order to get sailors for her navy, England stopped American 

ships and took from them sailors who were not British citi- 
zens. Their nativity could readily have been ascertained by 
the British. 

5. The British committed acts of violence against American 

sailors. 

6. Because of our weakness, we had no alternative but to ratify 

the Jay treaty. 



125 



THE EMBARGO 

Objection has been submitted to the Committee to so much of 
McLaughlin and Van Tyne, Sec. 433, as states : 

1. "Jefferson asked Congress for an Embargo,— a way of making an 
enemy suffer which few men had heard of outside of Gulliver's Travels." 

2. "Congress, ever obedient to Jefferson's will, passed the act." 

3. "Commerce was tied to Jefferson's apron strings, men cried." 

The objections are to the effect that these statements are derogatory 
and misleading. 



CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTIONS 

Schouler says : 

"Protection of private property, was the real purpose of this Embargo 
Legislation, whatever ills might have practically resulted from it ... . 
Embargo must be contemplated as an experiment, somewhat like that of ampu- 
tating a limb in order to save a life. The patient recognizes well what he has 
lost, but not the loss which was prevented. In this grave and sudden emergency, 
the question for the United States was not whether to avoid to make a sacrifice, 
but whether one sacrifice might not be better borne for the time being than 
another. With belligerent decrees against us, utterly reckless of our rights, 
diametrically opposed to one another, and universally operative, our neutral 
commerce must have been conducted between Scylla and Charybdis." 

"But it was asked and not without relevancy, 'Why not let merchants arm 
their vessels, or otherwise encounter the perils at their own discretion?' To 
this, the answer was: 

"First, because the Nation cannot safely or honorably commit the cause 
of all to the discretion of a class; 

"Second, because this Government's responsibility to England and France, 
as well as to its own citizens, was not to be evaded for calamities which might 
occur should belligerent orders be disregarded, and new penalities and "new 
retaliations be invited. As a purely temporary measure, Embargo was a fair 
choia among difficulties, nor a choice, in tin present instance wholly 
unforeseen. Ships themselves might rot if long disused; and yet, on the 
whole, such a stoppage of trade, if brief, affected with no great partiality, 
al! classes and sections of the country. An Embargo had been laid in 1793 while 
Washington was President, under the inducement of Eastern Federalists, with 
a similar reliance upon the Executive discretion. The present Embargo received 
the general approbation of State Legislatures upon its first adoption. It united 
popular sentiment as no other measure would have done. An Embargo, rightly 
considered, was no more than a temporary detention. Jefferson himself 
conceded it to be the universal opinion thai war would bo preferable to the long 
continuance of such an inhibition. This, he thought, was our last card, short 
of war. Ho thought the time gained by it import ant, and undertook on 
the strongth of such a measure' to procure a retraction from either France or 
England." 

The charge that commerce was "tied to Jefferson's apron strings" 
is objectionable. The reference to "Gulliver's Travels," is indefen- 

126 



sible. The charge that Congress was "ever obedient to Jefferson's 
will," is overdrawn. 

Unquestionably, the President of the United States wields (it is 
just that he should) great power with Congress, particularly in times 
of trouble. Congress naturally assumes (which it has a right to do) 
that the President has in his possession information which cannot be 
published. Jefferson was supported in his position, not only by mem- 
bers of his own party, but by John Quincy Adams, who "now shook 
the dust of Federalism from his feet." He said, "The President has 
recommended the measure on his high responsibility. I would not con- 
sider; I would not deliberate; I would act." 

Congress gave the President discretionary power as to the enforce- 
ment of the Embargo. The presumption was that he would exercise 
his discretion honestly and fairly. 



recommendations 

In any account of the Embargo, there should be a sympathetic 
statement of the aims and purposes of the Embargo, and of the diffi- 
culties which confronted the country. 



127 



WERE WE JUSTIFIED IN DECLARING WAR AGAINST 

ENGLAND 

Objection has been submitted to the Committee to so much of 
Barnes, Sec. 318, as states: 

"It was a mistake. It was a case in which righteous anger overcame judg- 
ment. Some hot-blooded young statesmen from the Southern States, among 
whom were Henry Clay of Kentucky, and John C. Calhoun of South 
Carolina, urged that war be declared, and they had their way." 

The objection is to the effect that the statement is partisan. 

CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTION 

There can be no question that we had ample justification for de- 
claring war against either England or France, or both. On the issue 
of war our people were divided. Some were for war with England; 
some for war with France ; some for no war. 

Prior to the declaration of war, the people of New England were in 
favor of war. They complained of the depredations of Great Britain. 
Congress was flooded with petitions, memorials and remonstrances from 
all parts of New England, setting forth "the outrages" committed by 
Great Britain against the unoffending commerce and the seamen of New 
England, and calling upon Congress for redress. In a speech delivered 
on April 3, 1812, Josiah Quincy declared that we could not "be 
kicked into a war." 

When the war came, those who had been most insistent upon war 
were most clamorous in denouncing it. In a speech delivered in his de- 
bate with Webster, Hayne says : 

"The war party in peace, and the peace party in war .... suddenly 
discovered that the war was declared from subserviency to France, and that 
Congress and the Executive had sold themselves to Napoleon ; that Great 
Britain had not in fact done us any essential injury; that where she took 
one of our ships, she protected twenty ; that if she had impresed a 
few of our seamen, it was because she could not distinguish them from her 
own. The most touching pictures were drawn of the hard condition of the 
American sailor, treated like a slave, forced to fight the battles of the enemy, 
lashed to the mast, to be shot at like a dog. The very moment we had taken 
up arms in their defense, it was discovered that all these were mere fictions 
of the brain, and that the whole number in the State of Massachusetts was 
but eleven, and that these had been taken by mistake. The Secretary of State 
had collected an authentic list of not less than 6,000 impressed Americans. Lord 
Casterleagh himself I'cknowledsed 1.600, and yet, Massachusetts lost but eleven. 

Nothing was left undone to embarrass the financial operations of the 
government, to prevent the enlistment of troops, and to keep back the men 
and money of New England from the service of the union. 

128 



Hear, Sir, the language of thai day: 'Let no man who wishes to continue 
the war by active means, by vote, by lending money, dare to prostrate himself 
at the altar on the fast day. Will Federalists subscribe to the loan? Will 
they lend money to our national rulers? It is impossible, first because of 
principle, and secondly, because of principal and interest. Any Federalist who 
lends money to the government must go and shake hands with James Madison 
and claim fellowship with Felix Grundy. Let him no more call himself a 
Federalist and a friend of his country.' " 

The Americans had grievances enough. Over nine hundred Ameri- 
can ships had been seized by the British, and more than five hundred 
and fifty by the French. The number of American citizens impressed 
and kept in prison, if they refused to serve, was reported to exceed 
6,000. The United States had remonstrated again and again at being 
kicked and cuffed by both belligerents, like a mere interloper, among 
the nations of the earth, who had no rights, and was not entitled to re- 
spectful consideration. (Schurz.) 

When Clay was reminded of the danger of a conflict with Eng- 
land, and that the conduct of France was equally grave, he replied: 

"Weak as we are, we can fight France, too, if necessary, in a good cause,-- 
a cause of honor and independence. We have complete proof that Great 
Britain would do everything to destroy us." .... "War is necessary 
because Great Britain has arrogated to herself the pretension of regulating 
our foreign commerce under the delusive name of "retaliatory Orders in Council" 
because she persisted in the practice) of impressing American seamen, because 
she had instigated the Indians to commit hostilities against us, and because 
she refused indemnity for her past injuries upon our commerce. The war, in 
fact, was announced on our part to meet the war she was raging on her part." 

Before war was declared, the aggressions and depredations of which 
both belligerents were guilty were thoroughly and exhaustively con- 
sidered in and out of Congress. 

Under the circumstance it is not proper for a textbook writer to 
say: 

'The war was a mistake; it was a case in which righteous anger overcame 
judgment." 



129 



THE MILITIA 



The following objections submitted to the Committee are considered 
in the annexed monograph : 

1. To so much of Hart's School History, Sec. 98, as states: 

"Many of the militiamen served from the purest motives of patriotism, 
but others were drawn into the army by money bounties and promises of land. 
Though personally brave they disliked discipline, and would sometimes leave 
when their terms of service expired, even in the midst of a march against 
the enemy. Neither the Continental Congress, nor the colonies, were willing 
to give Washington what he needed, an army of 30,000 enlisted for several 
years, responsible only to Congress, well-disciplined, and accustomed to obey 
orders. The result of the militia system was that about 250,000 different men 
were enlisted, each serving on an average less than one year, besides about 
200,000 militia serving for brief periods.' 

2. To so much of Gitteau, p. 274, as states : 

a. The militia refused to cross the Canadian boundary. So the entire 
campaign of 1812 ended in defeat and disgrace. 

b. Later events were to prove that the militia could not even be relied 
upon to defend our national capital, much less to invade Canada. 

3. To so much of Hart, as states : 

a. The crowning disgrace was the landing of a British force of about 5,000 
men on the coast of Chesapeake Bay, and their march overland as if they were 
going on a picnic, till they captured Washington (1814). 

b. Within a circle of sixty miles from the capital lived not less than a 
hundred thousand able-bodied Americans accustomed to the use of a gun; but 
the British were allowed to burn the public buildings and to return to their fleet, 
almost without losing a man. 

c. Madison and his military advisers were weak and incapable. 

d. To be sure the roads were bad and it was hard to send men and supplies 
to the front; but somehow the Canadians marched over just as bad roads, and 
managed to reach the desired places. 

The objections are to the effect: 

1. The account as to the organization of a standing army during 

the Revolutionary War is inadequate and unfair, as it does 
not set forth the difficulties which confronted Congress. 

2. The accounts as to the service rendered by the militia during 

the second war with England are inadequate and unfair as 
they fail to set forth the fact that many believed there was 
no legal right to invade Canada, that others believed it was 

130 



morally wrung to invade Canada, and that as to the capture 
of Washington, the authorities in charge failed to make ade- 
quate preparation for its defense, because they had reason 
to believe the British would not attack it. 



CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTIONS 

The above topics are too controversial to permit of adequate treat- 
ment in a textbook used in the public schools. As evidence of this, we 
call attention to the following: 

While some condemn the Continental Congress for its failure to 
organize a standing army, and to heed Washington's frequent pleas, 
other writers argue in extenuation that Congress w r as without money, 
without power, and that there existed a strong prejudice everywhere 
against the maintenance of a standing army. Many felt that "mon- 
archical tendencies were necessarily inherent in a military organization." 

While some denounce the refusal of some of the militia to invade 
Canada, others commended it because they agreed with Josiah Quincy 
that to invade Canada would be a buccaneering expedition. 

While some denounced the incompetence of the government officials 
in not taking adequate measures • for the protection of Washington,' 
others defended the Secretary of War. They insisted that he had good 
reason for believing that the British would make no attempt to attack 
Washington, as its capture could be of no military value, and could not 
be held if captured. 

From the above, it is manifest that the subject is too controversial 
to permit of adequate presentation in an elementary school textbook, 
and therefore should be eliminated. 



131 



NAVAL VICTORIES— WAR OF 1812 

The following objections submitted to the Committee are considered 
in the annexed monograph : 

To so much of McLaughlin and Van Tyne, Sec. 448, Vol. II, as 
states : 

1. "His brave last words still ring in the ears of American seamen — 'Don't 
give up the ship.' This victory brought cheer to the British, and it was 
some comfort to them that in the case of every one of their late defeats the 
American ships had the heavier guns, or a greater tonnage, or more men. But 
the differences were slight, and the British navy had been used to giving greater 
odds than these. The truth wasi that the American ships were the best built 
of their time; their crews were skillful in handling the guns and were "the 
cleverest seamen on the ocean." 

2. To the foot-note in connection with the above: 

"Fight the ship until she is sunk," seem to have been his real words, and the 
others are the words of the boy who took the message on deck. 

The objections are to the effect that: 

1. The statement that in every one of the late battles the Ameri- 

cans had "heavier guns or a greater tonnage or more men," 
is not true. 

2. That the tenor of the account as a whole is to belittle the vic- 

tories of the Americans. 

3. That the foot-note has no educational value, and moreover de- 

tracts from the inspirational character of Lawrence's 
heroism. 



consideration of objections 

The naval victories of the Americans during the War of 1812 in 
single combat have brought so much fame and lustre to our navy that 
the writer of a textbook should exercise great care in making any 
statement which belittles the naval achievements of the young republic 
against the greatest naval power in the world. 

While it is true that "the London papers tried to explain away the 
British defeats by claiming that American vessels carried more men 

132 



and threw heavier broadsides, the fact was that the men behind the 
guns of the American ships were too much for their adversaries. 
Yankee ingenuity had invented a system of sights upon naval artillery 
which made the aim of American guns more accurate than that of the 
British. The success of the Americans "was due to better seamanship, 
more accurate gunnery, and to the superior construction of their 
vessels." 

Under the circumstances, said section 448 should be rewritten to 
make it very clear why the Americans won. 

The battle between the Chesapeake and the Shannon is one of the 
most inspiring of sea fights. An account of the battle should be given 
in every textbook dealing with the War of 1812. 

As to the footnote in connection with Sec. 448, we submit : 

Whether Lawrence said "Don't give up the ship," or, "Tell the 
men to fight until she sinks," or "Tell the men to fire faster and not 
give up the ship," is of no consequence in its bearing upon the objec- 
tives of history teaching in the public schools. 

In the lower grades, the primary aim is to teach the facts of history, 
not as an end, but as a means to an end. Therefore, the vital facts in 
connection with the battle between the Chesapeake and the Shannon 
are: 

Lawrence, though mortally wounded, thought not of himself, but 
of his ship and of his duty; while being carried below he gave utter- 
ance to a sentiment which has become the battle-cry of the American 
Navy. Under the inspiration of a vivid account of his heroism and the 
thrill of his dying words the pupil is experiencing such high character- 
building emotions that the writer ought not to have the slightest de- 
sire or thought to evoke a doubt as to the exact words in which the 
hero uttered his imperishable sentiment. Not the accuracy of the 
words, but the nobility of the sentiment is important. The historical 
accuracy of the words should be postponed for later historical study. 

In the monograph on Ethan Allen, we had occasion to consider a 
similar doubt cast by these writers upon the words used by Allen when 
he demanded the surrender of Ticonderoga. 

133 



ATTACK UPON CANADA 

The following objections submitted to the Committee are considered 
in the annexed monograph : 

1. To so much of Guitteau, p. 273, Vol. II, as states: 

''Apparently, our War Hawks forgot that upper Canada was settled 
largely by Loyalists refugees from the United States. These Loyalists and 
their children had not forgotten their treatment by the American patriots 
during the Revolution. They were not likely to ally themselves with the 
people who had driven them lrom their homes and conhscated their property." 

2. To so much of Hart, Sec. 164, as states : 

"Nothing seemed easier, for by this time, there were about seven million 
Americans, and the whole population of Canada was not more than 450,000." 

The objections are to the effect that the statements are partisan and 
derogatory. 



CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTIONS 

The statement that "our War Hawks" had apparently forgotten 
that the Loyalist refugees had settled Upper Canada and that they and 
their children had not forgotten their mistreatment by the American 
patriots, and were not likely to ally themselves with those who had 
driven them from their homes and confiscated their property is partisan 
and uncalled for. 

Hart's statement "nothing seemed easier, for by this time there 
were about seven million Americans and the whole population of 
Canada was not more than 450,000," is an unfair summary of the 
beliefs of those who favored a declaration of war. 

It is true Clay dreamed of "the battalions of the Republic march- 
ing through Canada, laying siege to doomed Quebec, — and of a peace 
dictated at Halifax," but he also realized that England was a powerful 
foe and that the task before us would strain the resources of the coun- 
try to the utmost. 

There was opposition in Congress to the invasion of Canada. 

134 



JosiAii Quincy denounced it as a buccaneering expedition. Clay re- 
plied that Canada was simply a basis of supplies and of operations for 

the British. 

In moments of public excitement and of public danger, those en- 
trusted with the nation's welfare will occasionally, under the impulse of 
strong emotions, make statements which will not bear the analysis of 
calmer moments. It is not the province of a textbook writer to subject 
such statements to derogatory criticism. Clay's outburst was not 
that of a boastful, reckless man, but of one strongly moved by the in- 
dignities to which his country had been subjected, because his country 
was weak, and the aggressor strong. 



135 



THE BURNING OF WASHINGTON 

The following objections submitted to the Committee are considered 
in the annexed monograph : 

1. To so much of the account in McLaughlin and Van Tyne, 
Section 453, as states : 

"In revenge for the burning of Yorke (Toronto) the invaders burned the 
Capitol, the White House, and other public buildings, and then hurried away. 
Both regretted the vandalism of their soldiers when it was too late." 

2. To so much of Guitteau's account, pp. 279 and 280, Vol. II, 
as states : 

"The British claimed that their action was justified on account of the burn- 
ing of Yorke (now Toronto) by the Americans." 

3. To so much of the account in Barnes's History for Grammar 
Grades, Section 325, as states: 

"They said that they (meaning the British) destroyed these government 
buildings to punish the Americans, who had, early in the war, burned some 
public buildings in Yorke (Toronto). 

CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTIONS 

Green, in his History of the English People, says of the burning of 
Washington : 

"Few more shameful acts are recorded in our history; and it was the more 
shameful in that it was done under strict orders from the Government at 
home." 

One British publication called it "A return to the times of 
barbarism" ; another remarked, "The Cossacks spared Paris, but we 
spared not the Capital of America." 

Lossing, in his Pictorial Field Book of the War of 1812, says: 

"Up to this time, the conduct of the British had been in accordance with 
the rules of modern warfare. Now they abandoned them, and on entering the 
National Capitol, they performed deeds worthy onlv of barbarians. They 
wantonly destroyed the public edifices having: no relation in their structure to 
operations of war, nor used at the time for military annoyance. Some of these 
edifices being also costly monuments of taste and of the arts, and others, deposi- 
taries of the public archives, and only precious to the nation as a memorial 
of its origin and its early transactions, and interesting to all nations as contri- 
butions to the general stock of historical instruction and political sc'ence. 

"The British Annual Register for 1814 denounced the proceedings as 'A 
ml urn tc the time of barbarism.' 'It cannot be concealed,' the writer continued, 

136 



'that the extent of devastation practiced by the victors brought a heavy cen- 
sure upon the British character, not only in America, but on the continent of 
Europe.' 

"To the credit of General Ross be it said that when he was ordered to 
destroy the public buildings al Washington, he demurred, saying that they 
had carried on the war on the Peninsula, and in France, with a very different 
spirit, and that he could not sanction the destruction of public or private 
property with the exception of military structures and war-like stores. It was 
not until he was warmly pressed that Ross consented to destroy the Capitol 
and the President's house. 'Fortunately,' says Lossing, 'for Ross's sensibility, 
there was a titled incendiary at hand in the person of Admiral Sir George 
Cockih k\ who delighted in such inhumane work, and who literally became 
his torch-bearer.' " 

Let vis now take up the story of the destruction of the buildings at 
Yorke (Toronto). 

Lossing gives the following account: 

"Firing from the garrison ceased and the Americans expected every 
moment to see a white flag displayed from the block house in token of 
surrender. . . . General Pike, who had assisted in removing a wounded 
soldier to a comfortable place was sitting upon a stump conversing with a 
huge British sergeant, who had been taken prisoner, his staff around him. 
At that moment was felt a sudden tremor of the ground followed by a tremen- 
dous explosion near the British garrison. The enemy despairing of holding the 
place had blown up their powder magazine situated at the mouth of a ravine 
near where the buildings of the Great Western Railway now stand. The effect 
was terrible. 52 Americans lay dead, and 180 others were wounded. So badly 
had the affair been managed that forty of the British also lost their lives by the 
explosion. General Pike, two of his aides, and the British sergeant were 
mortally hurt. 

"The magazine was so situated that the Americans did not suspect its 
existence there." 

In a foot-note to Murray's Historical and Descriptive Account of 
British America, Volume I, page 230, appears the following: 

"The firing of this mine was undoubtedly a most barbarous and unjustifi- 
able act on the part of the British. Their defeat was already inevitable, and 
they knew the explosion could not affect the result. It was therefore a wanton 
destruction of life, as cowardly as it was cruel, without any expectation of 
benefit to themselves." 

The Americans took possession of the place, and a large quantity of 
naval and military stores passed into their possession. Such of the latter 
as could not be carried away were destroyed ; but before the victors left, 
the public buildings were fired by some unknown hand, and consumed. 

Lossing, p. 591, gives the following account: 

"It is said that the incendiary was instigated by the indignation of the 
Americans, who found hanging upon the wall of the legislative chamber a 
human scalp." 

"General Dearborn wrote, 'A scalp was found in the Executive and Legis- 
lative Chamber suspended near the speaker's chair, accompanied by the mace.' 

137 



"Niles says, 'The mace is the emblem of authority, and the scalp's position 
near it is truly symbolical of the British power in Canada. The Canadian 
people had no part nor lot in the matter, and should not bear any of the 
odium.' " 

Canadian writers give the following account of the destruction of 
the buildings at Yorke: 

Murray, in his Historical and Descriptive Account of British 
America, page 230, says: 

"The invaders suffered greatly by the explosion of a mine which killed 
or wounded about 260, including among the former, General Pike, an .American 
officer of distinguished merit, who had planned and conducted the attack. 
After burning all the public buildings, they carried off the artillery and naval 
stores, and by the first of May, evacuated the place." 

Grant's Ontario High School History of Canada, p. 157, gives the 
following account : 

"The American fleet sailing across Lake Ontario captured and burned the 
town of Yorke, April 27. In the fight a magazine exploded and 250 American 
soldiers were hurled into the air." 

In Clement's History of the Dominion of Canada, we find the fol- 
lowing account, p. 169: 

"By an unfortunate explosion just as the final assault was about to be 
made a large number on both sides were killed ,and many wounded. Among 
the latter was General Pike, who died on board ship a few hours later. 
American historians gravely assert that the American troops found hanging 
up over the speaker's chair, in the Legislative Assembly Chamber a human 
pcalp, which so incensed them that they proceeded to burn a number of public 
buildings.'' 

William Wood, in his Account of the War with the United States 
(Chronicles of Canada Series), says: 

"The Americans lost over 200 men by an explosion in the British battery 
at Yorke, just as Sheaffe was maching off. Forty British had also been blown 
up in one of the forts a little while before. Sheaffe appears to have been a 
slack inspector of powder magazines. But the Americans, who naturally sus- 
pected other things than slack inspection, thought a mine had been sprung 
on them after the fight was over. They consequently swore revenge, burning 
all Parliament buildings, looted several private houses, carried off books from 
the public library, as well as plate from church. Chauncet, much "to his 
credit, sent back all the books and plate he> could recover." 

The claim that the buildings in Washington were burned in reprisal 
for the burning of the buildings in Yorke (Toronto) cannot be sustained: 

Lossing, in his Pictorial Field Book of the War of 1812, page 932, 
p&ys : 

138 



"Evidently ashamed of the barbarism committed by British hands, 
Vice-AdmiraJ Cochrane attempted to palliate it by a pitiful trick. Alter the 
destruction of the Capital, he wrote a letter to Secretary Monroe which he 
ante-dated as of August 18, or six days before the battle of Bladensburg, in which 
letter, he stated, in order to make it appear like a humane suggestion, that he 
had been called upon by the Governor General of Canada to retaliate against 
the inhabitants of the United States for the wanton destruction committed by 
the American armies m upper Canada. In the letter, Cochrane further ex- 
pressed the hope that the President of the United States would authorize him 
to stay retaliatory measures by making reparation to the suffering inhabitants 
of upper Canada 

This letter did not reach Monroe until after the destruction of the national 
capitol, when he in a dignified reply, reminded the Vice-Admiral that the British 
had destroyed Frenchtown, Frederick, Georgetown, Havre de Grace, and had 
committed outrages at Hampton before the destruction of Newark." 

We submit the following is a fair summary of the facts brought out 
in the foregoing accounts : 

1. The American army had captured Yorke. After it became evi- 

dent that all resistance was useless, a powder mine, so situated 
that the Americans had no reason to suspect its presence, was 
exploded, and a great number of Americans, including some 
British, were killed. This was a needless sacrifice of human 
life. 

2. After the battle was over, a human scalp was found over the 

speaker's chair in the legislative assembly chamber. 

3. Thereafter, some of the public buildings in Toronto were de- 

stroyed. 

4. Neither British nor American writers claim that any official order 

was ever given to destroy the public buildings at Yorke nor is 
there any claim that such destruction was with the sanction of 
the American Government, or the American officials. 

5. The destruction of the public buildings at Washington was the 

result of an official order. The burning was done under 
strict orders. 

The unofficial act of an irresponsible soldier, or a number of soldiers, 
acting under the excitement of an explosion, which had killed several 
hundred of their comrades, and incited by the presence of a human 
scalp did not warrant the British Government in demanding the destruc- 
tion of the public buildings in Washington as a retaliatory measure. 

Unquestionably, acts were committed during this war both by Amer- 

139 



icans and by British, which should not have been committed, and which 
ought to be forgotten and forgiven. No good can possibly come from 
keeping alive their memory. But, when a writer says, "In revenge for 
the burning of Yorke, the invaders burned the capital, the White House, 
and other public buildings, and then hurried away," he is not making a 
fair statement. The child receives the impression that the public build- 
ings in (Yorke) Toronto were destroyed by the American army acting 
under official orders just as public buildings in Washington were de- 
stroyed by the British army acting under such orders. 

RECOMMENDATION 

If the writer states the reasons given by the British for their destruc- 
tion of the public buildings at Washington, he should make it clear that 
the burning of the public buildings at Washington was an official act, 
while the burning of the buildings at Yorke was an unofficial act ; and 
that the Americans never sought to justify the burning of the buildings 
at Yorke. 



1-10 



BATTLE OF NEW ORLEANS 

The following objection submitted to the Committee is considered in 
the annexed monograph : 

To so much of Barnes's Grammar Grades, Sec. 328, as states: 

"All that it, was necessary for the Americans to do to win a victory was 
to hold their ground. The invaders came on like British soldiers, and like 
British soldiers they came on again and again. For three hours, they endured 
1 he hostile fire of the Americans, and then gave up the hopeless task of taking 
the earthworks. The British lost 2,500 men and many officers. Among them 
was the gallant General Packingham, their commander. The American loss 
was very small. It was a wasted battle; it was a needless victory, for the war 
was over." 

The objection is to the effect that the account does not bring out the 
adverse circumstances under which Jackson won ; and it shows no appre- 
ciation of the value of the victory. 

CONSIDERATION OF THE OBJECTIONS 

The British had sent from 10,000 to 12,000 veterans of the Napo- 
leonic wars to capture New Orleans. 

Lossing in his Field Book of the Second War with England says: 

"Jackson's whole force on the New Orleans side of the river, on the seventh 
of January, 1815, was about, 8,000 in number, and of these, only 2,200 were at 
his line. Only 800 of the latter were regulars, and most of them new recruits 
commanded by young officers. General Morgan on the opposite side of the 
river prepared to defend his line with only 800 men, all militia and indifferently 
armed. On his left were two six, pounders, and a twelve pounder. 

"The army which confronted Jackson consisted of 10,000 of the finest 
soldiers in the world, divided into three brigades, and placed under the com- 
mand of Generals Lambert, Gibbs and Kean. Kean's advanced corps were 
furnished with facines to fill the ditches and scaling ladders to mount the 
embankments." 

"Steadily on marched Wellington's veterans, stepping over the dead bodies 
of their slain comrades until they had reached a point within 200 yards of 
the American line, behind which concealed from the view of the invaders, lay 
the Tennesseeans and Kentuckians, four ranks deep. Suddenly the clear 
voice of General Carroll rang out, 'Fire!' His Tennesseeans arose from 
cover, and, each man taking sure aim, dealt a most destructive volley on the 
foe, their bullets cutting down scores of the gallant British soldiery." 

We do not agree with Barnes that, "It was a wasted battle ; it was a 
needless victory, for the war was over." Our reasons are: 

1. It revived the confidence of the American people in the military 
ability of their soldiers when under competent leadership. 

141 



Clay, Adams, and Gallatin, who had negotiated the Treaty 
of Peace at Ghent, had been instructed to go to London for the 
purpose of negotiating a treaty of commerce. Clay, how- 
ever, did not make haste to go to England, because he was 
depressed by the many defeats the Americans had suffered, 
and because to him the peace was unsatisfactory, but as soon 
as he heard of the battle of New Orleans, he was ready to 
start. "Now," said he, to the bearer of the news, "I can go 
to England without mortification." 

2. Had the British won, and captured New Orleans, it might have 
brought on serious complications. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

In any textbook account of the Battle of New Orleans, the following 
should be brought out : 

1. The importance of New Orleans, commercially and strategically. 

(That is why the British sent 12,000 veterans to capture the 
city.) 

2. The genius of Jackson, and the courage of the Western soldier. 

3. The poor equipment and the inferiority in numbers of Jackson's 

men. 

4. The consequences of the battle : 

a. It raised the respect of foreign nations for America. 

b. It prevented possible complications, which might have arisen had 
the British captured New Orleans. 

c. It restored confidence in the army. 

d. It gave the country its first real knowledge of the "Great West." 



112 



THE TREATY OF PEACE AND THE RESULTS OE THE WAR 

OF 1812 



The following objections submitted to the Committee are considered 
in the annexed monograph : 

To so much of McLaughlin and Van Tyne as states : 

"In the War of 1812 one feels like asking with Little Peterkin: 'What 
good came of it at last?' Some 30,000 men had been lost and about two 
hundred millions of dollars had been spent on wasteful war. American shipping 
was almost destroyed and trade had suffered great losses, and yet no principle 
for which she had fought was settled." 

To so much of Barnes' account, Sec. 318, p. 254, as states: 

"The war was a mistake. It was a case in which righteous anger overcame 
judgment." 



CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTIONS 

Although McLaughlin and Van Tyne have given the results of 
the war, their introductory statement, "one feels like asking with Little 
Peterkin. what good came of it at last?" has been construed by some as 
disparaging the results of the war. This introductory statement should 
be eliminated or re-written. 

Carl Schurz in his Life of Henry Clay, says: 

"If the warlike impulse in this country was mere sentiment, as has been 
said, it was a statesmanlike sentiment. For the war of 1812, with all the losses 
in blood and treasure entailed by it, and in spite of the peace whicluignored 
1he declared causes of the war. transformed the American Republic in the 
estimation of the world from a feeble experimental curiosity into a power, — 
a world power, full of brains and with visible claws and teeth. It made the 
American people who had so far consisted of the peoples of so many little 
commonwealths, not seldom wondering whether they could profitably stay long 
together, a consciously united nation with a common country, a great country, 
worth fighting for and a common national destinv; nobody could say how 
creat; and a common national pride at that time filling every American heart 
brim full. The war had encountered the first practical disunion movement 
and killed it by exposing it to the execration of the true American feeling: 
killed it so dead, at least on its field of action in New England that a smaller 
aspiration has never arisen there again. The war put an end to the last remnant 
of colonial feelintr. for, from that time forward, there was no longer any English 
party, or any French party, in the United States, it was thenceforward all 
American as against the world. A war that had such consrqurnrrs was not 
fought in vain." 

143 



Clay said in a debate a year later in the House of Representatives: 

"I gave a vote for the declaration of war. T exercised what little influence 
and talent I could command to make the war; the war was made. It is ter- 
minated, and I declare with perfect sincerity, if it had been permitted to me 
to lift the veil of futurity, and to foresee the precise series of events which 
has occurred, my vote would have been unchanged. We had been insulted and 
outraged and spoliated upon by almost all Europe, — by Great Britain, by 
France, Spain, Denmak, Naples, and, to cap the climax, by the little con- 
temptible power of Algiers. We had submitted too long and too much; we 
had become the scorn of foreign powers, and the derision of our own citizens. 
What have we gained by the war? Let any man look at the degraded condi- 
tion of this country before the war, the scorn of the universe, the contempt of 
ourselves, and tell me if we have gained nothing by the war. What is our 
situation now? Respectability and character abroad, security and confidence 
at home." 

The foregoing is a sufficient answer to the statement in Barnes that 
"the war was a mistake; it was a case in which righteous anger overcame 
judgment." 



14 



INVASION OF FLORIDA 

The following objection submitted to the Committee is considered 
in the annexed monograph: 

To so much of McLaughlin and Van Tyne, Sec. 475, as states : 

"Jackson marched into the Spanish territory, punished the Indians, seized 
a Spanish fort (April, 1818), and even put to death two Englishmen who were 
charged with being spies. He greatly exceeded his rightful authority." 

CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTION 

Whether Jackson did or did not exceed his authority is a moot 
question. The Committee is of the opinion that the statement is inap- 
propriate. 

The charge that the commander of the United States army greatly 
exceeded his authority is a very serious charge and should not be made 
in a textbook unless the evidence is clear and convincing and the state- 
ment of the charge is essential and of unquestionable educational value. 

As to the charge that he even put to death two Englishmen who 
were charged with being spies, we quote from Schouler : 

"The right to execute filibusters by court-martial has since been confirmed 
by the memorable examples of Walker at Truxillo, and of the unhappy royal 
youth, young Maximilian in Mexico." 

When resolutions were proposed by the Military Committee of Con- 
gress to censure Jackson for the execution of Arbuthnot and 
Ambrister, and for the seizure of Pensacola, the resolutions were de- 
feated by 108 to 62 and by 100 to 70, respectively. 

Under such circumstances the writers should have refrained from 
saying. "He greatly exceeded his authority." 



145 



THE CORRUPT BARGAIN CRY 



Objection has been made to the Committee to Section 481 of Mc- 
Laughlin and Van Tyne on the ground that the section is derogatory 
and partisan. 

The specific passage objected to reads as follows : 

"There had .been a 'deal,' they asserted, and Clay, Judas of the West, 
had sold his influence to Adams for the office of Secretary of State." 



CONSIDERATION' OF OBJECTION 

The Committee is of the unanimous opinion that the above passage 
is inappropriate in a public school textbook. 



146 



TEXTBOOK TREATMENT OF OFFICIAL DIGNITY 

Objection has been made as follows: 

1. To so much of the account in McLaughlin and Van Tyne, 
Sees. 386 and 418, as states : 

a "The extreme Federalists did not like him. On the Fourth of July, 
1891 voters of a town in Connecticut drank to the toast: 'Thomas Jefferson, 
may he receive from his fellow citizens the reward of his merit, a halter. 
(Foot-note.) . ... 

b "To distinguish the President from the common men there was talk 
of giving him the title 'His Highness,' or 'His Patriotic Majesty.'" 

c "Washington himself, a born aristocrat, was rather stiff, and his formal 
receptions where none could come without invitation cards, offended many 
good plain souls. Good men all over tho land shook their heads and said it 
would ali end in monarchy." iL ... „ ., , . , . . 

d. "Some wag is said to have suggested that the Vice-President might be 
called his 'Superfluous Majesty.' " (Foot-note.) 

2. To so much of the account in Hart's History of the United 
States, Sec. 150, as states: 

a. The Federalists looked upon Thomas Jefferson as an atheist, a liar, 
and a demagogue. 

3. To West as a whole. 

The objections are that the foregoing statements are derogatory and 
highly inappropriate. 

consideration of objections 

The statement : "The voters drank to the toast, Thomas Jefferson, 
may he receive from his fellow citizens the reward of his merit, a 
halter,' " is inappropriate in a public school textbook. 

The statement: "The Federalists looked upon Thomas Jefferson 
as an atheist, a liar and a demagogue," has no place in a textbook. It 
is an unjust arraignment of the Federalist party. It is an intemperate 
and violent denunciation of the President. 

The reproduction by Hart of this virulent attack upon Jefferson 
by his bitter enemies and traducers is peculiarly objectionable because 
while Hart proceeds to deny that Jefferson was an atheist, as to the 
charge that Jefferson was "a liar and a demagogue," Hart simply says, 
"He was a reserved man and did not tell everybody all that he knew, and 
hence some thought him false. He was a believer in government by the 

147 



people, which many of the Federalists thought shocking, and they were 
sure he could not be sincere." 

Even if Hart had vigorously denied the charge that Jefferson was 
"a liar," the account would have been out of place. Children are easily 
impressed with violent and intemperate language. Catch phrases and 
sensational utterances linger in their memory. Unfortunately, too, de- 
nials are forgotten, while charges are remembered. 

At this point it is fitting to call the attention of textbook writers to 
the fact that the City of New York has a difficult Americanization prob- 
lem. No doubt a similar problem confronts other municipalities which 
have a large and heterogeneous foreign population. Many of these 
foreigners regard the government and the public officials with distrust 
and suspicion. They do not realize that in a Republic there must be 
sympathetic co-operation with the government and its agencies. Aggres- 
sive and insidious forces are at work among these people. Their aim is 
to create disrespect for and hostility to our form of government. Those 
engaged in sowing the seeds of disssension understand the workings of 
the child mind. The literature they circulate among the children is filled 
with rabid and violent denunciations; with sensational utterances; with 
catch phrases. In their literature we expect to find such tirades as "liar 
and demagogue" ; "infamous monopoly" ; "money kings" ; "Congress and 
the Federal bunch." They are out of place in a textbook designed pri- 
marily to help the teacher inculcate respect for authority; love for law 
and order ; and sympathetic appreciation of our institutions and their 
ideals. 

Such is the working of the child's mind that we do not hesitate to 
say, out of the fulness of our experience with elementary school children, 
that ninety percent of the pupils who read Hart's account will leave 
school believing that Jefferson, the "Author of the Declaration of Inde- 
pendence" was a "liar." How can we inculcate love for law and order 
and respect for our institutions and ideals, if we use a textbook which 
either directly or indirectly leaves the pupil under the impression that the 
"Author of the Declaration of Independence," the third president of the 
United States, one of the "Founders of the Republic," the "Founder of a 
great political party," and one of the outstanding figures in our national 
life was "a liar." 

From the standpoint of Americanization, West's "History of the 
American People," is particularly objectionable. It bristles with such 

148 



denunciatory attacks as "money king"; "infamous monopoly"; 
"scoundrels graduated into national politics" ; "Congress and the Federal 
bunch." 

From the above standpoint, "McLaughlin and Van Tyne, Sec. 
386, is objectionable, particularly the foot-note: "Some wag is said to 
have suggested that the Vice President might be called 'His Superfluous 
Majesty'." 

History is a content subject. In selecting material for a content 
subject, only the best material must be used. Therefore, even if we 
were to hold that the above statements are not derogatory, we, as teachers, 
must hold they are inappropriate. Their educational value is slight. 
They do not contribute toward a realization of the specific aims upon 
which the Committee has agreed. 

The issue is not one of historical accuracy, but of appropriateness of 
selection of material for the end in view. As Dean Russell says: "It 
is the function of the teacher to prescribe the nature of the material 
wanted. It is for the textbook writer to supply it." 



149 



CARTOONS, ILLUSTRATIONS, PICTURES 

The following objections submitted to the Committee are considered 
in the annexed monograph: 

1. To the pictures in Hart's Revised History of the United States 
as follows : 

a. On page 136 — The picture and the description: 

"According to popular notion Frenchmen were frog-eaters, so when Mr. 
Nathaniel Tracy of Cambridge entertained Admiral D'Estaing and his officers 
he was much surprised at the merriment among his guests when each found a 
frog in his plate of soup." 

b. On page 169 — The picture and the description: 

"From the Looking Glass for the Mind — a child's book published about 
1780. This shows both the simple and elaborate dress of little girls." 

c. On page 170 — The picture and description: 

"Emily Marshall (1807-1836). Such was the fame of this Boston beauty 
that the entire audience rose when she entered the theatre, and crowds 
gathered wherever she appeared." 

d. On page 171 — The picture and the description: 

"Boys played marbles in much the same way that boys of today play the 
game." 

e. On page 171 — The picture and the description: 

"An illustration from youthful sports showing little girls at play." 

f. On page 186 — The picture of Mrs. John Jay in connection with the 
John Jay Treaty. 

2. To the following cartoons in McLaughlin and Van Tyne : 

a. Sec. 583 — The cartoon of Abraham Lincoln, the Rail Candidate. 

b. Sec. 674 — The cartoon entitled "The Fate of the Carpet bagger and the 
Scalawag." 

c. Sec. 774 — The cartoon of Woodrow Wilson entitled "Wonderful 
Control." 

The objections are to the effect that: 

Some of the cartoons, illustrations and pictures are educationally valueless; 
some are inappropriate; and some are offensive. 

CONSIDERATIONS OF OBJECTIONS 

As was pointed out by some of the objectors, it is no doubt very 
interesting to know that Mr. Tracy was a thoughtful host ; that little 
girls formerly wore simple and elaborate dresses ; that little boys played 
marbles formerly in much the same way as today ; that the Boston 
audience was very gallant to the beautiful Emily Marshall, but these 
things are out of place in a book designed for upper grade and high 
school use. 

There seems to be no particular reason for giving a picture of Mrs. 
Jay in connection with the John Jay Treaty. The space could be used to 
better advantage. 

150 



Many of the cartoons, illustrations and pictures, are unquestionably 
open to the objections made. 

Cartoons, illustrations, and pictures make a very powerful appeal to 
children as they give "definiteness to visual imagery." Unless therefore, 
the picture conveys "aesthetic impressions as well as information," makes 
vivid and real the heroic, the noble, the good, the beautiful and the use- 
ful ; and bring the pupil into contact with the best in order that he may 
learn to love the best, it is not appropriate for textbook use. The 
cartoon, the illustration, the picture, should tell a story worth while. 

Judged by these standards, the cartoons in question, even if inof- 
fensive, are not of sufficient educational value to justify the space they 
occupy. 

As the supply of cartoons, illustrations, and pictures of unquestion- 
able propriety and of high educational value is inexhaustible, there is no 
occasion for using any others. 



151 



GOVERNMENT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK 

Objections have been submitted to the Committee as to the accuracy 
of some of the statements in McLaughlin and Van Tyne's Chapter 
on the Government of the City of New York. 

CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTIONS 

McLaughlin and Van Tyne's chapter on the Government of The 
City of New York contains a number of errors. Some are due to changes 
in the law since the book was published ; others, to misinterpretation. 

In Section 824. The statement that "the present charter became 
effective April 22, 1901," is incorrect. The charter was approved by the 
Governor on said date, but went into effect as to most of its provisions 
on January 1, 1902. 

In Section 826. The statement, "If the Board (meaning the 
Board of Aldermen) repasses the proposed ordinance by a two-thirds 
vote, it becomes a law in spite of the veto of the Mayor," is incorrect. 
The actual provision is : The proposed ordinance may be repassed by a 
two-thirds vote, unless it involves the expenditure of money, the creation 
of a debt, or the laying of an assessment, when a vote of three-fourths of 
all the members is required, etc. 

In Section 832. The statement that "The Board of Education 
consists of forty-six members" is incorrect. It now consists of seven 
members. 

There are other errors in Section 832; for example, the number of 
school districts is now forty-eight, and the number of district superin- 
tendents, twenty-seven. 

Section 837. The statement in section 837 that "the Civil Service 
Law provides for three Civil Service Commissioners appointed by the 
Mayor" is incorrect. The Civil Service Commission consists of three 
or more suitable persons, not more than two-thirds of whom shall be 
members of the same political party. 



152 



Section 839. This section contains the following errors : 

(a) The Municipal Court has jurisdiction up to $500. 

(b) The Court of Special Sessions is a "higher court." 

(c) The General Sessions is created by charter. 

The municipal court has jurisdiction up to $1,000. The 
Special Sessions is an inferior local court; the General 
Sessions is not created by charter. 



153 



COLONIAL IGNORANCE AND SUPERSTITION 

Objection has been made to the Committee to so much of Mc- 
Laughlin and Van Tyne, Sec. 216, as gives an account of colonial 
ignorance and superstition. 

The objection is to the effect that the article is an unfair presenta- 
tion of the condition of the colonies, and that it holds them up to ridicule 
and contempt. 

consideration of objection 

The question here is as to the historical accuracy of the characteriza- 
tion of most of the early colonists of America, as "ignorant and super- 
stitious." 

As a whole they were probably more enlightened and intelligent than 
any similar people in the world at that time. Certainly their leaders were 
above criticism intellectually, and Lord Chatham pronounced the ad- 
dresses and resolutions of the Continental Congress "unsurpassed by any 
state papers ever composed in any age or country." 

Both Lecky and Trevelyan comment especially on the high intel- 
lectual level of the American colonists. Trevelyan says (Am. Rev., 
vol. I, p. 61) : "Lafayette and de Segur joined in testifying that they 
never met truer gentlemen than their hosts in the New England villages, 
and their brethren in arms who sat around the frugal table of 
General Washington." Again on page 65 : "Those varied and pro- 
tracted struggles had left a mark in the virile and resolute temper of the 
existing generation, in their readiness to turn a hand to any sort of work 
on however sudden emergency, and in their plain and unpretentious 
habits. But there was nothing uncivilized or unlettered about them. In 
their most bitter straits, while the existence of the community was at 
hazard, the founders of the colony had taken measures for securing 
those supreme benefits to the individual which in their eyes were the true 
end and object of all combined human effort." Common schools and 
colleges were founded and a relatively high proportion of the colonial 
leaders were college graduates. 

Lecky says (Woodburn's Edition, page 30) : "In general there was 
great prosperity and a high level of civilization. Boston, New York, 
Philadelphia, and Charleston would, in almost all of the elements of civil- 

154 



ization, have ranked high among the provincial towns of Europe. (Page 
32.) In the northern colonies education was both very widely diffused 
and very equal. The average was exceedingly high." 

In the face of this direct testimony of English historians and con- 
temporary Englishmen, the statement, "It is hard for us to realize how- 
ignorant and superstitions were most of the early colonists of America," 
(McLaughlin and Van Tyne, p. 134) is misleading, if not inaccurate. 
Our magnificent public school system, unequalled anywhere in the world, 
is the creation of colonial New England, and an eternal monument 
to the lofty ideals and progressive tendencies of its founders. Instead 
of commenting on the universal superstitions of the time, a textbook 
writer might far better quote Lowell's tribute to the little New England 
school house: "Now this little building, and others like it, were an 
original fortification invented by the founders of New England. These 
are the martello-towers that protect our coast. This was the great 
discovery of our Puritan forefathers. They were the first lawgivers 
who saw clearly and enforced practically the simple moral and political 
truth that know ledge was not an alms, to be dependent on the chance 
charity of private men, or the precarious pittance of a trust fund, but a 
sacred debt which the commonwealth owed to every one of its children. 
The opening of the first grammar school was the opening of the first 
trench against monopoly in state and church; the first row of pothooks 
and trammels which the little Shearjashubs and Elkanahs blotted and 
blubbered across their copybooks was the preamble to the Declaration of 
Independence." 

The only opposition to colonial education came from people of the 
stamp of the notorious Governor Berkeley of Virginia, who wrote in 
1671 : "I thank God there are no free schools nor printing in Virginia, 
and I hope we shall not have them these hundred years ; for learning 
has brought disobedience, and heresy, and sects into the world, and 
printing hath divulged them, and libels against the best government ; 
God keep us from both!" From his point of view Berkeley was quite 
correct. There seems to be no doubt that among the chief causes of 
the Revolution must be put the free schools and printing presses of 
New England. They contributed much to the generation and develop- 
ment of the democratic spirit which eventually freed the colonies. 

RECO M M ENDATIONS 

In any treatment of the subject "Colonial Ignorance and Super- 
stition," the writer should emphasize the following points: 

155 



1. The comparatively small proportion of educated people even 

in the most prosperous countries. 

2. The prevalence of superstition universally among all classes of 

people. 

3. The comparatively high degree of education in the colonies. 



156 



REPORT OF HIGH SCHOOL COMMITTEE 

Of the books used in the high schools, objection was made to the 
following : 

School History of the United States — Revised — Hart. 

History of the American People — West. 

American Government in 1921 Magruder. 

Burke's Speech on Conciliation with America — Ward. 

Most of the objections raised are disposed of in the report of the 
elementary school committee, because there is an overlapping. The ob- 
jections not so disposed of are considered in the annexed report. As 
the pupils in the high schools are more mature than the pupils in the 
elementary schools, many of the issues raiseed have no application to 
the teaching in the high schools. The high school teacher and the 
high school textbook must be permitted considerable latitude. However, 
there must always be due regard to reasonable limitations. The nature 
of the objections, and the aims and purposes of teaching history in our 
high schools are sufficiently indicated in the annexed report when read in 
connection with what has been said hereinbefore, to enable the writers 
and the publishers to make necessary changes in their text. 

REPORT OF THE SUB-COMMITTEE ON HIGH SCHOOL TEXTBOOKS 

The Committee decided that its work should proceed along two 
lines: (a) A critical examination of the specific charges that had been 
made regarding certain textbooks in use in the City of New York. 
This critical examination of specific charges should embrace both the 
issue of historical accuracy as between writer and critic, and the ques- 
tion of the propriety of the material used, and its manner of presenta- 
tion, (b) The presentation of certain constructive suggestions re- 
garding all textbooks. 

The Committee felt that all books examined should be tested by 
the general standards which were established by the Committee. In ad- 
dition, however, the Sub-Committee felt that certain considerations 
should be kept in mind in examining textbooks to be used in high 
schools as distinguished from textbooks to be used in the elementary 
schools. It concurred with the attitude of the Sub-Committee on ele ■ 
mentarv school textbooks that for younger children, much emphasis 
should be placed on the heroic characters of our early history. If ele- 

157 



mentary school textbooks will do this, much will be dune to avoid the 
possibility of any lack of appreciation on the part of the older students. 

The Committee also kept in mind the fact that before entering the 
high school, the pupil has twice covered in an elementary way the field 
of American History; that American History is taught in the 4th year 
of high school to pupils whose ages range from sixteen to twenty ; and 
that all of these pupils have previously studied civics in the high school, 
and have had at least one year of European History. 



ward's preface to burke's speech on conciliation 

The Committee made an examination of certain published criti- 
cisms which have been made concerning this book. These criticisms 
were carefully weighed and the text in question carefully examined. 
We find that some of the criticisms were based upon misquotations of 
the text, or upon inter-change of textual matter which distorted the ob- 
vious intention of the author. 

On the question of the historical accuracy of Ward's contention 
that the responsibility for the Revolutionary War should be laid upon 
the shoulders of George III, the Committee submits that there is reason- 
able historical ground for holding that the Tory Ministry and the Tory 
majority in Parliament must also take their share of the blame. 

The Committee feels that Ward presents a fair picture of the 
situation. It has kept in mind the fact that Ward is not writing a 
history, but that he is writing a preface for the use of students in the 
fourth year of high school so that they may have the historical set- 
ting for the understanding of the classics in question. 

We see no reason why "freedom" should almost always be referred 
to as "English freedom." The Committee believes that in several places 
where Ward speaks of the "English people" he could be more ac- 
curate by using the expression, "the English speaking people"? The 
concluding paragraphs of the preface seem to be irrelevant and unnec- 
essary, and an expression of opinion which Ward might have diffi- 
culty in sustaining. The Committee would suggest that the preface will 
lose nothing by the elimination or recasting of the last three paragraphs. 

158 



MAG RUDER — "AMERICAN GOVERNMENT" 

(With a consideration of the problems of democracy.) 

The Committee has made a study of this book with a view to trie 
effect which it is likely to have on pupils in the city high schools. The 
Committee is convinced that on questions of partisan politics, a text- 
book should avoid even the suspicion of leaning toward one group. 
Pupils too often take the printed page as positive authority and fail to 
distinguish between actual fact and the author's opinion. Several teach- 
ers report to the Committee their objection to Magruder's arrange- 
ment and his selection of material in Chapter II, the Development 
of the State. Their feeling is that paragraph 13 gives the impres- 
sion that the possibility of failure of our present economic civilization is 
great and that the only solution of our economic ills is the adoption of 
the socialistic program. This is the impression which a student in high 
school in a cosmopolitan city like New York might obtain as the result 
of his study of this chapter. 

In discussing political parties the Committee questions the advisa- 
bility of the insertion of much material which Magruder has selected. 
It should be the object of 'the civics teacher to inspire in the youth 
of our land the highest ideals of our political life. It is well known 
that political conditions do not 1 improve when the intelligent element 
of our community stands aloof and deems everything connected with 
politics corroupt. For example: To state as is done on page 237 
that among the various sources of funds (for presidential campaign pur- 
poses) are "contributions by keepers of gambling houses, saloons, dis- 
reputable resorts and others who violate city ordinances or state laws" is 
not only a statement which the author may have difficulty in proving as 
a general proposition, but is also a statement which may give to the 
youthful mind an impression undesirable and unwarranted. 

There is a brief summary of the platforms of the Democratic and 
Republican parties (page '230-1) followed by quotations from the plat- 
form of the Socialist party. These quotations from the Socialist plat- 
form would give to the New York youth the impression that the stated 
items are the foundations of socialism but they do not give any of the 
clauses of the constitution of the Socialist party 'which are objection- 
able to the great majority of American citizens. The Committee main- 
tains that a fair presentation of 'this subject should include with appro- 

159 



priate comments, a verbatim statement of those parts of the Socialist 
Party Constitution to which patriotic Americans have taken 'objection, as 
well as portions of the 1917 platform showing the attitude of the 
Socialist Party during the war. In other words, the presentation does 
not seem to be impartial. 

The Committee feels that the entire handling of the subject "Capi- 
tal" is dangerous. At times too, there are statements which to certain 
elements in our population would merely give an opportunity for appeal 
to class prejudice. For example : The entire discussion in Section 136 
headed, "Inequalities before the Law." 

BEARD AND BEARD — "HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES" 

No criticism of the subject matter in this textbook was placed be- 
fore the Committee, but in the opinion of the Committee, there may be 
faults of omission as well as of commission. When the writer of a text- 
book discusses Karl Marx, or the Socialist Party, the Committee is de- 
cidedly of the opinion that mild allusions or half truths are not enough, 
but that the exposition should be so far complete as to make entirely 
clear the un-American character of the organization, platform and poli- 
cies of the Socialist Party. In this particular respect the book fails. 

WEST'S HISTORY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE (ALLYN AND BACON, 1918) 

From the point of view of the adult, this book has many virtues. 
On the other hand, from the standpoint of the average pupil in the 
New York public schools, or of the teacher selecting textbooks for such 
pupils, the book has 'serious faults. 

In the. first place, it is not a prime function of a public school text- 
book in a cosmopolitan city like New York to promote especial friend- 
ship with any one nation. The author has made much of the first feature 
proclaimed in his preface, to emphasize "the historical grounds for 
friendship between England and America, in spite of old sins and mis- 
understandings." A pupil studying the American Revolution is apt to 
be confused by the undercurrent of praise for English institutions, 
mingled with hearty condemnation of English policies. This conclusion 
is especially conspicuous in paragraph 177, pages 140, 141. 

It is questionable whether it is advisable to go out of the way "to 
portray the weaknesses, blunders, and sins of democracy." Had we 

160 



none but "generous minded youth" to deal with in our schools, no doubt 
the author's faith in the value of such material would be justifiable. 
Unfortunately, New York is a city struggling with a large foreign popu- 
lation It is struggling to Americanize its heterogeneous population by 
education in the public schools and their adjunct,. Sinister counter cur- 
rents are continually met, tending to .shake the pupil's faith in our form 
of government. Under such conditions., it is the height of folly to furnish 
in our school textbooks ammunition for the soap box orator who is trying 
to undermine our dearest institutions. Why insert such statements as 
"Mosl of the settlers were servants, and a rather worthies, lot, page 6/ ; 
"a had lot with the vices of an irresponsible, untrained, hopeless class 
\ . . cheats and drunkards from this class .... led to crime or 
Suicide." Page 71: a whole page too of objections to democracy, "the 
meanest and worst form of government;' page 80; "many of them paid 
themselves indirectly for their devotion to public service by what would 
today he called graft," page 132; "especially was the public land a source 
of private riches." page 133; "pettiness and ignorance on the part of the 
colonists," page 141; "Wolfe had only 700 Americans, whom he de- 
scribed as "the dirtiest, most contemptible, cowardly dogs .... 
such rascals are an encumbrance to an army," page 182; "Washing- 
ton declared that he would have been wholly helpless for a long time, 
had he not had under his command a small troop of English soldiers 
pa-e 183- "colony after colony, for time after time, had been guilty of 
sacrificing the safety of a neighbor to sordid parsimony or to mean 
jealously" page 189; "Sam Adams' father had been ruined by the wise 
English vet,, of a proposed Massachusetts 'Land Bank.' The older 
( )tis had failed to secure an appointment on the Massachusetts bench. 
\, exander Hamilton- was a penniless and briefless law student, with 
n chance for advancement unless by fishing in troubled waters," page 
195- the whole description of "Sam Adams" on page 206; "Nearly a tilth 
deserted to the well fed enemy in Philadelphia," page 236; " it was 
.aid that more men were under arms against independence than for it, 
page 257; "the most horrible form of mob violence . ... to en- 
rich grafting speculators at corruptly managed sales," page 238. etc. 

What laudable objective of history teaching in public schools is 
attained by such statements? What constructive purpose is served by 
such recitals? Must the human frailties of the pariots he dragged from 
the -rave and paraded on a textbook page, with all the "sins ami misun- 
derstandings," in order to emphasize the "historical grounds tor friend- 
ship between England and America"? Granting that all these statements 

101 



of faults and weaknesses are substantially correct, what pupil is inspired 
or improved by knowing them? 

The author makes a special feature of "the long conflict between 
entrenched privilege and the progressive forces in State and Nation." 
Some of this is constructive criticism, and some is more like the notorious 
"muckraking" of yellow journalism and kindred literature. Chapter 
XLVIII pictures class war; pages 282 and 283 exhibit corrupt govern- 
ment methods; page 609 describes "the amazing growth of business 
immorality" ; in paragraphs 741 and 742, and again on pages 684 and 685 
political rottenness is exhibited. Chapter LXV, "The People vs. Privi- 
lege" and a large part of LXVI describe intimately the vileness of some 
American institutions. Perhaps there is a place somewhere for such 
material, and much benefit to be derived from its presentation, — but 
that place is not the school. 

The "weaknesses, blunders, and sins of democracy," should be pre- 
sented only when they can be made effective as constructive and helpful 
criticisms. 



102 



STANDARDIZATION OF TEXTBOOKS 

[f materia] has been accurately selected and the reasoning has been 
logical and fair, textbooks ought to be in substantial agreement. Yet, 
while some of the textbook writers consider certain facts essential, others 
consider them unessential; while some hold certain facts to be true, 
others characterize them as "yarns." 

( )ne has but to open the pages of a textbook to satisfy himself of the 

need for reasonable standards as to aim and content. To teach pupils 
in one school that certain facts are true; that certain men were honorable 
statesman ; and to teach in another school the direct opposite, is intolerable. 
Such contradictory and irreconcilable teaching shatters our most cher- 
ished traditions, and destroys faith in our national aspirations. 

To what extent books have deviated from a common standard is 
shown by the investigation conducted by Professor Bagley, and re- 
ported in the Fourteenth Year Book of the National Society for the 
Study of Education, Part 1 : 

'At tht 1 beginning of the presenl academic year the writer undertook with 
his graduate seminary an analysis of 24 textbooks that have had an extensive 
use in tin 1 seventh and eighth grades. These books are being carefully com- 
pared as to scope of treatment, amount of space devoted to different topics, 
and style of treatment. Inasmuch as the texts represent each decade since 
I860, it has been possible to note the changes that have taken place in the 
content of elementary history during the past fifty years. The plan of investi- 
gation contemplates a determination of the various topics treated anrl the rela- 
tive emphasis given to each as represented by the proportion of the entire 
'book devoted to its discussion. It is a fair assumption that the emphasis in 
teaching generally follows rather faithfully the emphasis indicated by the text; 
hence a determination of this sort will indicate more clearly than any other prac- 
ticable method the actul content of the historical instruction." 

"An important movement in the last two or three decades in the leaching 
of elementary history has been to lay less stress upon military affairs, and to 
trive more attention to social and industrial development. The general ten- 
dency is well represented by the tabulation in Table II. showing the relative 
emphasis thai has been and is being given to certain important epochs in 
American history as indicated by the proportionate amounts of space given 
to the discussion of the various epochs in the different texts. 



163 



TABLE II 

Average Proportion of Space of Entire Book Devoted to Various Periods. 

In Four In Four In Seven In Seven 

Books Books Books Books 

period Pub. from Pub. from Pub. from Published 

1860 to 1875 to 1890 to since 

1875 1890 1905 1905 

Colonial wars ~ 53% 42% 37% 3.6% 

Pre-Revolutionary period (1763-1775). 3.1% 1.9% 3.6% 3.9% 

War of the Revolution 18.0% 15.3% 11.6% 10.0% 

1783-1812 (including "critical period") 5.7% 9.1% 11.1% 13.5% 

War of 1812 5.9% 3.2% 3.9% 3.2% 

Civil War 15.0% 13.1% 11.9% 10.5% 

"Not only has the proportion of space devoted to wars generally (and, for 
the major wars, steadily) decreased, but the treatment of war in the school 
histories has been modified, less attention being given in the more recent texts 
to the details of battles and campaigns and more attention to the causes of the 
wars and to social and economic conditions as influenced by the wars. 

"The treatment of the period of national expansion and growth covering 
the years 1814-61 is also more extended and detailed in the later texts than in 
those published twenty and thirty years ago. The proportion of space given 
to colonial development remains approximately the same. Perhaps the most 
significant increase in emphasis is represented by the figures in Table II, showing 
the proportionate space devoted to the 'critical period.' When the more 
specific topics are tabulated, the increase of emphasis on industrial and social 
history will doubtless be clearly revealed." 

"The names of persons associated with the various periods are particularly 
significant from the point of view of minimum essentials. It may be truly 
said that there is no 'Hall of Fame' that can compare for a moment with the 
common pabulum of the elementary program. If a name finds a niche here, it 
should certainly deserve the honor. As a matter of fact there are wide variations 
in the number of historical characters referred to in the different texts, and 
only a very narrow range, within which all texts are in substantial agreement. 
This is clearly shown in the following tabulations. 

"For the period of exploration and discovery, a total of 109 different names 
are mentioned in 22 different books, the most common number being between 
34 and 39. Of this total, however, only 4 are found in all of 22 books. Giving 
these an arbitrary value of 100 each, the principal characters of the period in 
question assume the following degrees of importance as measured by this 
standard : 

Columbus 100 Cortez 82 

John Cabot 100 Virginia Dare 82 

Balboa 100 De Soto 77.5 

Raleigh 100 Verrazano 77.5 

Vespucci 95.5 Menendez 77.5 

Drake 95.5 White 77.5 

Queen Elizabeth 95.5 N/.rvaez 77.5 

Sebastian Cabot _. 91 King Ferdinand 77.5 

Ponce de Leon 91 Cartier 77.5 

Queen Isabella 91 Leif Ericsson 73 

Gilbert 86.5 Gosnold 73 

Magellan b2 Henry VIII 73 

"For the period of colonial growth, 200 different names are found in 21 
different books, the average number of names in each book being 50. Only 9 

164 



names are found in all of the books: John Smith, John Winthrop 1 lter 
teSZZJZm William Penn, Roger Williams, Edmond Andbos, Wiluah 
bSSlk ^mes Oglethorpe, and George Carteret. The following additional 
!,;,;,:";,' found in 19 out of the 21 books: Nathaniel Bacon, Pocahontas 
King Phillip, George Calvert, John Berkeley. HifWnt 

"In connection with the French and Indian War a total of 109 different 
names are found in 23 books, but of these only 3 are common to all: Wasii- 
H.GTON, Bhaddock, and Wolfe; while a fourth, Montcalm, is missing in but 

° ne ""The pre-Revolutionary period gives a total of 79 different names in 23 
books with only one name found in all-PATRicK Henry James Otis, 
\\nuAM 1'Irr, and Gage find a place in 19 out of the 23 books and Samuel 
Adams in^l7. ^ ^ Revolutio n involves in 21 books a total of 252 different 
names, with only 7 common to all, and others arranged on a percentage basis 
as follows: 

Washington J00 Howe 95 

Greene ™0 Schuyler ™ 

Gates 100 Allen g 

Arnold 100 DeKalb 8o 

Cornwallis 100 Morgan *•> 

Gage 100 Tarleton f 

Lafeyette 100 Lincoln •*> 

Franklin 95 Warren «« 

Jones 95 Putnam M) 

g TARK 95 Montgomery ™ 

Wayne".'.'.*.'.'.'.*.'.'.'.'.'" jg J.Adams 80 

Charles Lee 95 Pickens »" 

Marion 95 R. H. Lee 75 

Jefferson 95 Pulaski <* 

Andre 95 Clinton 75 

Burgoyne 95 Prescott . • « 



Sumter 



95 Sullivan 7 5 



■ "The period 1783-1812 gives a total of 93 different names in 18 texts 
the usual number in each book being about 24. Common to all of the boo<cs 
are the names of the four Presidents serving in tins period (Washington, 
Adams, Jefferson, and Madison), and, in addition, Jay and Ha* iilton . 
Napoleon, Aaron Burr, and Tecumseh are referred to in 15 out of the 18 

>0 "The period 1812-1861, while rich in names mentioned, shows a very small 
proportion common to all texts. In, addition to the names of the presidents, 
the only names found in all of 23 texts are O. H. Perry, Winfield Scott, 
Henry Clay, John Calhoun, J. C. Fremont, and John Brown. Isaac Hulv., 
Webster Douglas, and Dred Scott find a place in 21 texts. _ 

"The period of the Civil War shows a much higher proportion of names 
common to all of the texts. In 22 books, 21 names are common to alb These 
are- Lincoln, Anderson, Beauregard, Jackson, McDowell, McClellan, 
Rosecrans, J. S.Johnston, A.S.Johnston, Burnside, Buell Thomas, Grant, 
Farrugut Davis. Sherman, Lee, Hooker, Meade, Early, and Sheridan. In -1 
books the following additional names appear: Bragg. Mason, Slidell, Pope and 

"Much more significant than the names of persons common to the school 
histories are the topics thai are common to all of the texts and the proportion 
of emphasis civet, to each topic. Once these data are tabulated we shall 
know with a fan- degree of precision what the common pafulum ol tn. 
elementary curriculum in respeel to history has been in the immediate past, 
what it is todav, and what changes have been made within the last fifty 
years. In the opinion of the writer, it will then be possible to proceed with 

165 



measures that may determine from various points of view the additions or 
eliminations that may be necessary or desirable." 

Objection has been made to some of the histories under investigation 
because on the ground that they do not mention Nathan Hale, Molly 
Pitcher, Betsy Ross, or Sergeant Jasper. Reply was made that these 
heroes and heroines were omitted because they ought to be studied in 
the grades below those for which the histories were written. But, what 
excuse is there for the omission of Franklin, Jones, Wayne, Jeffer- 
son, Burgoyne, Howe, Schuyler, Clinton, John Adams, Samuel 
Adams, or Hancock from textbook which treats of the Revolu- 
tionary period? Franklin was our representative in England and in 
France. Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence. 
John Hancock was President of the Second Continental Congress, and 
the first signer of the Declaration. Burgoyne was the British com- 
mander at Saratoga. Samuel Adams was probably the greatest 
single factor which brought about the Revolution. So, we can take up 
name after name, which ought to have been, and is not mentioned in all 
of the textbooks. We cannot conceive of any textbook which properly 
treats of the period of exploration and discovery, which does not men- 
tion Vespucci, Cabot, Ponce de Leon, Queen Isabella, King Ferdi- 
nand, Magellan, Cortez, De Soto, and Henry Hudson. 



166 



ESTABLISHMENT OF MINIMAL ESSENTIALS 



In view of the nature of the objections submitted to and considered 
by the Committee, and because of the facts brought out in the mono- 
graphs, the Committee is of the opinion that efficient teaching of history 
in the public schools requires the formulation of minimal essentials and 
that no textbook should be used in the schools which does not comply 
with the standards and requirements so established. 



167 



SUMMARY FINDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE 

The specific findings and recommendations of the Committee may be 
found in the stated aims in the report and in the critical analyses of the 
subjects presented in the monographs. As a result of careful consider- 
atien and discussion of the charges as a whole, the Committee agrees 
upon the following summary findings : 

1. There is no evidence to support the charge that any of the text- 

book writers whose books were examined is unpatriotic. 

2. There is no evidence to support the charge that any of the text- 

books examined was written as the result of organized propa- 
ganda. Some of the writers frankly stated they believed 
there ought to be more friendly relations between Great 
Britain and the United States, and that they wrote their 
histories from that standpoint. 

3. The usefulness of some of the books examined is questionable 

because the authors have written from the point of view of a 
critical historian rather than from the point of view of a 
teacher. 

4. There is no advantage in teaching pupils in the public schools 

the mistakes, weaknesses, and blunders of the prominent 
characters of the Republic. 

5. The principal faults of the textbook writers are : 

A. The failure to realize that many of the facts of history 

should be taught in the elementary grades, not as ends, 
but as means to an end, — love for law and order ; respect 
for constituted authority; appreciation of the institutions 
of the country and its ideals. 

B. The failure to describe adequately and vividly many of the 

most inspiring events in our history, though there is 
available a vast fund of material of the highest educa- 
tional value. 

Illustrations : Some of the accounts of the Battle of 
Bunker Hill; the Surrender of Cornwallis; the Battle 
between the Chesapeake and the Shannon. 

168 



C. The inclusion of statements and characterizations concern- 

ing our national heroes and our civic leaders which are 
either offensive, or of such doubtful propriety that they 
are out of place in a public school textbook. 

Illustrations : "Jefferson was a demagogue, a liar and 
an atheist"; "John Hancock was a smuggler"; "Samuel 
Adams was a political boss." 

D. The discussion of topics of such controversial character 

that a fair presentation of the essential facts involved re- 
quires far more space than is available within the limited 
pages of a textbook. 

Illustrations : The factional issues in the Jacksonian 
period; Hamilton's financial policy. 

E. The use of the textbook for the promulgation and the ex- 

ploitation of the writer's personal beliefs in disregard of 
curriculum requirements; in violation of reasonable 
limitations on his freedom of utterance, and in choice of 
material. 

Illustrations : The validity of the reasons set forth in 
the Declaration of Independence in justification of the 
Revolution; the justifiableness of our Declaration of War 
against England in 1812. 

F. The use of pictures, illustrations, and cartoons of question- 

able propriety, and in some cases, undoubtedly offensive. 

Illustrations: Cartoons on Lincoln and Wilson (see 
monograph on cartoons). 

G. The failure to realize that the usefulness of a textbook is 

determined rather by its presentation of material which 
makes for good citizenship and for Americanization than 
by its presentation of the recent conclusions of historical 
research. 

Respectfully submitted, 

THE COMMITTEE, 

Edward Mandel, 

Chairman. 



169 



ACTION BY THE BOARD OF SUPERINTENDENTS 

The foregoing report was submitted by Superintendent William L. 
Ettinger to the Board of Superintendents. That Board amended the 
summary findings to read as follows : 

SUMMARY FINDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE 

The specific findings and recommendations of the Committee may 
be found in the stated aims in the report and in the critical analyses of the 
subjects presented in the monographs. As a result of careful consider- 
ation and discussion of the charges as a whole, the Committee agrees 
upon the following findings : 

1. There is no evidence to support the charge that the textbook 

writers whose books were examined were intentionally un- 
patriotic. However, the paragraphs complained of in their 
books indicate an attitude of mind toward the founders of 
the Republic which, in our judgment, is entirely reprehensible. 

2. There is no evidence to support the charge that any of the text- 

books examined was written as a result of unwholesome 
progaganda. Some of the writers frankly stated that they 
believed there ought to be more friendly relations between 
Great Britain and the United States, and that they wrote 
their histories from that standpoint. 

3. The usefulness of some of the books examined is impaired be- 

cause the authors have written from the point of view of a 
critical historian rather than from the point of view of a 
teacher. 

4. The pupils in our public schools should not be taught the per- 

sonal weaknesses of our national leaders. 

5. The principal faults of the textbook writers are: 

A. Failure to realize that many of the facts of history should 
be taught in the elementary grades, not as ends, but as 
means to ends ; such as love for law and order, respect 
for constituted authority, appreciation of the institutions 
of the country and its ideals. 

170 



B. Failure to describe adequately and vividly many of the most 

inspiring events in our history, though there is available 
a vast fund of material of the highest educational value. 

Illustrations: Some of the accounts of the Battle of 
Bunker Hill; the Surrender of Cornwallis; the Battle 
between the Chesapeake and the Shannon. 

C. The inclusion of statements and characterizations concern- 

ing our national heroes and our civic leaders which are 
either offensive, or of such doubtful propriety, that they 
are out of place in a public school textbook. 

Illustrations : "Jefferson was a demagogue, a liar and 
an atheist"; "John Hancock was a smuggler"; "Samuel 
Adams was a political boss." 

D. The discussion of controversial topics, of which a fair pre- 

sentation of the essential facts involved requires far more 
space than is available within the limited pages of a text- 
book. 

Illustrations : The factional issues in the Jacksonian 
period; Hamilton's financial policy. 

E. The use of the textbook for the promulgation and the ex- 

ploitation of the writer's personal beliefs in disregard of 
curriculum requirements, and in violation of reasonable 
limitations on his freedom of utterance. 

Illustrations : The validity of the reasons set forth in 
the Declaration of Independence in justification of the 
Revolution; the justifiableness of our Declaration of War 
against England in 1812. 

F. The use of offensive illustrations, and cartoons. 

Illustrations: The cartoon on Lincoln; and the car- 
toon on Woodrow Wilson (see monograph on cartoons). 

G. Failure to realize that the usefulness of a textbook is deter- 

mined by the presentation of material that makes for 
good American citizenship. 

171 



LETTER OF APPRECIATION 



May 15, 1922. 



Mr. Edward Mandel, 

Chairman, Special Committee Appointed 
to Investigate the Charges Made Against 
Certain History Textbooks in Use in the 
Public Schools of The City of New York. 



Dear Sir: 

I beg leave to advise you that the Board of Superintendents has 
given very careful consideration to the report of the Special Committee 
appointed to investigate the charges made against certain history text- 
books in use in the public schools of the City of New York, and at a 
meeting held on the 12th inst., the report was accepted and the summary 
findings of the Committee were amended and approved. 

The following resolution was then adopted : 

RESOLVED, That the Board of Superintendents expresses its 
appreciation and thanks to the Special Committee for the 
excellent work it has performed in the preparation of this 
report. 

Yours very truly, 

William L. Ettinger, 
Chairman, Board of Superintendents. 



172 



INDEX 

Page 

Adams, Samuel 8j 

Adams, Samuel, How He Left Lexington ^6 

Allen, Ethan, Ticonderoga 87 

Andre, Major 97 

Arnold, Benedict, Treason of 89 

Boston Massacre 45 

Boston, Siege of 68 

Boston Tea Party 48 

Bunker Hill, Battle of 60 

Burgoyne's Campaign 70 

Canada, Attack on 1 34 

Cartoons 150 

Chatham, Earl of 114 

Colonial Ignorance 154 

Colonial Policy 37 

Confederation — Articles of 84 

Continental Congress, First 53 

Continental Congress, Second 54 

Cornwallis, Surrender of 74 

Corrupt Bargain Cry 146 

Declaration, Independence of 29 

Dignity and Democracy 147 

173 



Page 

Embargo 126 

Florida, Invasion of 145 

Galloway-Hutchinson 95 

Gaspee, Burning of 43 

George Third, Responsibility for War 33 

Government, City of New York 152 

Hale, Nathan 97 

Hamilton, Alexander 102 

Hancock, John 37 

Hancock, How He Left Lexington 56 

Henry, Patrick 104 

Hutchinson-Galloway 95 

Indians, Employment of 79 

Jackson, Andrew 107 

Jay, John, Treaty 122 

Jefferson, Thomas Ill 

Jones, John Paul 109 

King's Responsibility, Extent of 33 

Lexington, Who Began Battle 58 

Loyalists and Tories 81 

Manufacturers' Act 37 

Marshall, John, Attack Upon Ill 

Militia, In and About Washington 130 

Monroe, James 112 

Mother Country 35 

Naval Victories, War of 1812 132 

Navigation Act 37 

174 



Page 

New Orleans, Battle of 141 

New York City Government 152 

Pitt, William 114 

Religious Topics 117 

Report, High School Committee 157 

Revolution, Causes of, Hart 50 

McLaughlin and Van Tyne 50 

West 51 

Saratoga, Battle of 70 

Smuggling 37 

Tarleton, Colonel 116 

Ticonderoga — Allen 87 

Tories and Loyalists 81 

Treaty of 1783 77 

Treaty, John Jay 122 

Treaty of 1814 143 

Valley Forge 69 

War of 1812— Result 143 

War of 1812 — Were We Justified in Declaring 128 

Washington, Burning of 136 

Washington, Acquisition of Site 119 

Writs of Assistance 37 

Yorktown, Surrender of 74 



175 



INDEX TO AUTHORS 



Pages 

Barnes 37, 53, 54, 60, 70, 77, 89, 97, 104, 109, 

122, 128, 136, 141, 143 

Guitteau 17, 37, 43, 45, 81, 97, 102, 107, 117, 

130, 134, 136 

Hart 50, 58, 79, 81, 84, 85, 95, 97, 102, 111, 

130, 134, 147, 150, 157 

Magruder 157 

McLaughlin and Van Tyne 17, 29, 43, 45, 48, 50, 56, 60, 68, 69, 

70, 81, 85, 87, 89, 97, 102, 104, 107, 
109, 112, 117, 122, 126, 132, 136, 143, 
145, 146, 147, 150, 152, 154 

Morris 97 

West 17, 37, 43, 45, 51, 77, 79, 85, 116, 119, 

122, 147, 157 

Ward 157 



176 



